Attempt to seek compensation from Govt for relatives' wrong: Allahabad HC dismisses plea filed by man declared dead in revenue records

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea for compensation filed by a man who had been shown dead on revenue records in 1976.

The bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Manish Kumar observed that a mountain out of a molehill had been made by the petitioner only to claim compensation from the State Government for a wrong that was initially caused due to the greed on the part of his relatives.

Court also highlighted that the man had not filed any FIR against his relatives; he had also not arrayed them as parties in the present petition or in any other case filed before any Competent Revenue Court to get the revenue entries corrected.

Court emphasised that ample time had been spent on the issue only because of the allegation of the petitioner that he was declared dead by the State Government.

"No such declaration of death of the petitioner was ever made by the State Government, it was his relatives who was filed a claim for Succession under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Code," the division bench stressed.

Therefore, the court dismissed the plea with a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited by the petitioner.

The petitioner namely Lal Behari Mritak filed the present plea seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 Crores from the state government for business loss and mental agony.

The petitioner was originally resident of Village Khalilabad, District Azamgarh and after the death of his father, namely, Chauthi, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records and his immovable property vested in the name of the petitioner as he was the only son of his parents.

In the year 1976, the petitioner wanted to take a business loan by mortgaging his immovable property and was told to get a caste and income certificate from the concerned authorities in Village Khalilabad. When the petitioner went to the Area Lekhpal, he was told that on 30.07.1976 in Case No. 298 he was declared dead, and his entire immovable property was transferred in the name of his cousin brothers Patiram, Baburam, Baliram.

The petitioner repeatedly represented to all concerned about his plight of being declared dead, but noting was done.

The petitioner fought a long battle for himself to be declared alive. He claimed that as a result he was not able to concentrate on his business and faced mental agony.

The petitioner sought compensation stating that his right to life had been clearly violated by the opposite parties for more than eighteen years, therefore, compensation should be awarded.

Court, however, opined that the petitioner did not suffer any mental torture or physical or financial loss as the petitioner continued to live in Village Amilo and got married, bought and sold land, and had begotten children.

Court held that the entire present case set up by the petitioner for compensation of Rs. 25 Crores seemed to be an action taken out of some fortuitous circumstances where the case was highlighted by the Times Magazine.

There is no evidence of the petitioner ever running a business of banarasi silk saree manufacturing unit as alleged by him which had incurred losses, court stated.

Therefore, court held that only a wrong entry in the revenue records, caused mainly because of the relatives of the petitioner would not entitle him to the claim for compensation of Rs. 25 Crores.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Krishan Kanhaya Pal.

Case Title: Lal Behari Mritak v. State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. And 2 Ors.