CASE TITTLE:SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS. V. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
CASE NO:CIVIL APPEAL NO.5539 OF 2012
ORDER ON: May 16, 2024
QUORUM: J.C.T Ravi Kumar. J.Aravind Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This present appeal challenges the judgment dated 19.01.2010 Passed in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
The facts leading to the present appeal in question is that In the year 1969-70, the khasra plot No.185 inUP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared Unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion of the Said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant Collector and Subsequently different plots of land in said survey number came to be Allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners under Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.After 13 years, the Secretary, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar opiningthat the plot had been originally designated as PanchayatGhar, which had been unlawfully allotted for Residential use. Hence, he proposed cancellation of the allotments madeAnd to take possession of the land from all the allottees including writ Petitioners. The Tehsildar in turn forwarded a proposal to the District Magistrate for cancellation of the allotment. This, resulted in show cause notices being Issued to the writ petitioners and same was duly replied by them by filing Objections An application came to be filed by the Petitioners to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, sinceThe proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment., The Additional Collector arrived At a conclusion that there is no limitation fixed under the Act and Proceeded to reject the application filed. Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petition came to be Filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be entertained on Merits and dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the writ Petitioners challenged the same in Writ Petition which Came to be dismissed on two grounds namely,
the revision petition filedWas not maintainable in the teeth of Section 122-C(7); and,
That impugned order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector Over-ruling the objections of the writ petitioners with regard to limitation isCorrect and it was meritless. Hence, this appeal.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, talks about the Allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Castes, agricultural labourers, etc.
Section 132 of the uttarpradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms Act, talks about Land in which [bhumidhari]rights shall not accrue.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS:
The Respondents through their counsel Shri Tanmaya Agarwal,has vehemently contended that fraud Vitiates all acts and in the instant case the revenue was empowered under The UPZALR Act to cancel the illegal and fraudulent allotment of land Made in favour of the writ petitioners and as such suit had been instituted For cancellation of allotment for which no limitation has been specified under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act and particularly when the land in Question had been reserved as Panchayat Ghar it would be governed under Section 132 of the UPZALR Act. The counsel also submitted that even Otherwise where a bhumidhar uses the land for a purpose not connected With agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry same would be in Contravention of Section 143 and admittedly no permission had been Procured for the usage of the land for residential purposes as required Under Section 143. Hence, the counsel further contended that the authorities were Within their jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for cancelling the Allotment and the revenue authorities as well as the High Court had rightly Refused to interfere with the impugned order and rejected The writ petition where under they had sought for the suit being dismissed As barred by limitation. Hence, the counsel prays for rejection of this appeal.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court on Having heard the learned Counsel representing the State, considered records and referred few judicial precedents and observed that, in the report submitted by the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate, it has been stated therein that subject land had been Preserved for Panchayat Ghar and it is based on the information furnished By the peshkar working in the office Sub-District Magistrate who is said to Have intimated that the file does not bear the signature of the then SubDistrict Magistrate and the Tehsildar is also said to have found certain Irregularities.The court observed that the words, on the basis of such presumedirregularities He has jumped to the conclusion that allotment was irregular, against law And approval of allotment was on the basis of forged signature of SubDistrict Magistrate. However,the court further observed that on the basis of such conclusion,the court observed that the report is silent.In this background, the court is of the considered View thatthe Order impugned herein cannot be sustained. The court also made it clear that though the power of the Collector is Available to initiate suo moto action for cancellation of allotment underSub-section (6) of Section 122-C in case of fraud and the court is of the considered view that impugned order as well as the orders Impugned before the writ court would not be sustainable. Yet another factor which has swayed into the courts mind to quash the Impugned order is the fact that pursuant to the allotment made the allottees who are poor rustic villagers have constructed Their houses and the allotment was made based on the approval granted by The then Sub-District Magistrate and they have been residing in the Residential buildings so constructed by them for the last several years and To unsettle the same would result in heaping injustice to those poor hapless Persons and particularly when the subject land has been utilized for Allotment to the poor and houseless persons. The court For the cumulative reasons afore-stated, allowed the appeal and set asside the Impugned order Passed by Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, (Administration) Moradabad Division subject to Observation made herein above.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
judgement reviewed by: Sowmya.R
