Lucknow: A bizarre incident — of a subdivisional magistrate (SDM) court in Uttar Pradesh summoning Governor Anandiben Patel in a land dispute case — has left the latter fuming.
In an order dated 10 October, seen by ThePrint, an SDM in Badaun district summoned Patel to his court “to present arguments and bring witnesses to corroborate” her statement with regard to the case.
“You are informed that if you do not appear before the court, the decision in the case will be one-sided,” the notice further reads, asking Patel to appear before the court on 18 October.
The summons has been termed “extremely objectionable” by the UP governor’s office, which has asked the Badaun district magistrate (DM) to initiate legal action in the case and ensure it is not repeated.
In a letter to the DM, the special secretary to the UP governor has called the incident a violation of Article 361 of the Constitution, which says “no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a state, in any court during his term of office”.
The order in question was issued by the court of SDM (judicial) in Sadar tehsil of Badaun, Vineet Kumar, which has been hearing a case filed by a resident of Lodha Bahedi village that falls in Badaun’s Sadar tehsil.
The complainant, Chandrahas, moved court over a piece of land that he said belonged to his family and is now part of a bypass road.
According to his complaint, he should have inherited the land but it was fraudulently acquired by a cousin and sold to a third person who then got compensation from the government when it was taken over for the construction of the bypass.
He approached the SDM court in October 2019, to appeal against an August 2019 order passed by a tehsildar court, which he said had dismissed his application.
Chandrahas made the UP governor a party, alongside officials of the PWD department and a local resident identified as Lekhraj, to whom his cousin allegedly sold the land, parties in the petition.
SDM Vineet Kumar said to ThePrint that the summon notice went to the governor’s office due to a lapse on part of the complainant’s lawyer and a clerk of his office.
“A notice is served to the concerned parties in such a land dispute. In this case, since the PWD had purchased it, the khatauni had the governor’s name. Technically, the notice should have gone via the PWD department. The complainant’s lawyer usually drafts the notice and the clerk of SDM office puts a stamp on it but that did not happen in this case.”
In many cases, land disputes can lead to prolonged legal battles, as seen in the case of the Bahirat family, who fought for decades to reclaim their land from the state. This highlights the complexities involved in land ownership and the legal frameworks that govern such disputes.
“The lawyer’s clerk forwarded it to the governor’s office via registered post. The only lapse on part of the SDM office clerk is that he did not check the details of the notice. Usually, the notice is sent via the PWD executive engineer but that did not happen. Action is being taken against the clerk. The notice was sent in my absence,” he added.
Also Read: Anandiben Patel broke down 2 years ago. Her remark on breastfeeding is now making women cry
What was the complaint?
According to the complaint filed by Chandrahas in the SDM court, which has been accessed by ThePrint, his deceased aunt Katori Devi owned two plots of land along the Bareilly-Mathura National Highway.
Chandrahas claims to be the son of Katori Devi’s brother. He has alleged that, after her death, her sister’s son Chandrapal got the land mutation done in his name by claiming to be her son in connivance with a local accountant.
“As per the rule 174 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, sister’s son cannot inherit the property when his real nephew (brother’s son) Chandrahas is alive,” the complaint reads.
After getting his name enlisted in the revenue records in January 1999, Chandrapal sold off the land to Lekhraj in December 2003, the complaint says.
“When the land came under the Bareilly-Mathura road plan, Lekhraj executed a land deed for about 0.0973 hectares of land from one of the plots in the name of the UP governor. The mutation was done in August 2016 and, at present, a bypass has been constructed over the same and the road is functional,” it states.
Chandrahas said he lodged a case in the tehsildar court soon after he got information about the sale of the land to Lekhraj, but the tehsildar “did not pay attention to the evidence” presented by him.
‘Violation of Constitution’
In a letter to the Badaun DM Manoj Kumar on 16 October, the special secretary to the UP governor, Badri Nath Singh, has said the summons was a complete violation of Article 361.
“In view of Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the honourable governor is not answerable to any court,” says the letter, accessed by ThePrint.
The special secretary has also mentioned three decisions of the Supreme Court that have settled the matter, saying that the governor cannot be impleaded as a party before any court.
“In the light of the summon issued by the SDM Badaun, I have been directed to ask you to initiate necessary action in the case and also ensure that it is not repeated,” the letter says. This report has been updated to include SDM Vineet Kumar’s response.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: New Gujarat CM Bhupendra Patel is BJP’s olive branch to Patidars, Anandiben Patel convinced PM