Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 394 (ALL)

State v. Rama Kant

1980-03-31

H.N.AGARWAL

body1980
JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - These are six connected revisions against the Judgment and decree dated June 7, 1972 passed by Shri O.P. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, in six connected first appeals Nos. 60/31, 62/57, 61/55, 68/54, 65/56 and 64/30 of 1971/district Bareilly. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The facts are as follows:- On the receipt of reports dated November 19, 1969 and November 28, 1969 from S.D.O. Behari that the Land Management Committee of village Sangrampur had committed irregularities in executing 11 Sirdari leases, proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act were started in the court of the Additional Collector, Bareilly. After due inquiry, the learned Additional Collector held that all the leases were granted in contravention of the provisions of rules and cancelled them. Six of the allottee's filed first appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly, who allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Additional Collector so far as the appeals were concerned. The State of Uttar Pradesh through the Collector, Bareilly has now filed the revisions against the order of the Additional Commissioner. 4. The grounds taken in the revisions are firstly that the Additional Commissioner has failed to consider the material evidence on record and has come to wrong conclusions; secondly that the leases executed by the Gaon Sabha were against the provisions of law, thirdly that in granting the leases all the formalities necessary in this connection had not been complied with; fourthly that the order of the Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction as no appeal lay before him; fifthly that the order of the Additional Commissioner is based on conjectures and surmises and finally that on a consideration of entire facts and circumstances and the points of law leases were liable to be cancelled. 5. I may first of all consider the question whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide the appeals. The legislative history of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act dealing with allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee may be given here. In the original U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, sub-section (1) of Section 198 dealt with the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197. The legislative history of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act dealing with allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee may be given here. In the original U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, sub-section (1) of Section 198 dealt with the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197. Sub-section (2) read as follows:- "Any person aggrieved by an order of the Gaon Sabha passed under sub-section (1) may file an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer who shall hear and decide the same in such manner as may be prescribed." By Section 36 of U.P. Act No. XX of 1954, sub-section (2) as substituted by the following: "The Sub-Divisional Officer may on his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Gaon Sabha passed under sub-section (1) enquire in the manner prescribed into an allotment made under sub-section (1) and if he is satisfied that the Gaon Sabha has acted with substantial irregularity or otherwise that in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he may pass thereon such orders as he thinks fit." By Sections 23 and 55 of the U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1958, the words 'Assistant Collector incharge of a sub-division' were substituted for the words 'Sub-Divisional Officer' and the words 'Gaon Sabha' were replaced by the term 'Land Management Committee'. By Section 14 of Act IV of 1969, Subsection (2) was substituted by the following:- "The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment referred to in sub-section (1) inquire in the manner prescribed into such-allotment." By U.P. Ordinance No. XVIII of 1970, later replaced by U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1970, sub-section (2) was deleted. In its place, the following were added as sub-sections (2), (3) and (4):- "The land that may be allotted to:- (i) and sub-educational institution under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall not exceed such area as may be prescribed; (ii) any person under clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g) or clause (i) of sub-section (1) shall not exceed an area of 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres); and (iii) any person under clause (h) of sub-section (1) shall not exceed such area as together with the land held by him as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami immediately before the allotment would aggregate to more than 1.26 hectares (3.125) acres. (3) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if the is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may:- (i) cancel the allotment and the lease, if any, and thereupon the rights, title and interest of the allottee or lessee or any person claiming through him in the land allotted or leases shall cases, and such land shall revert to the Gaon Sabha, and (ii) direct delivery of possession of such land forthwith to the Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (4) Every order passed by the Collector under sub-section (3) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 333, be final." In the present case, the order of the Additional Collector, Bareilly was passed on June 14, 1971 i.e. after U.P. Act XXXV of 1970 had come into force. Thus, the amendments introduced by this Act would be operative. Under this Act, sub-section (4) of Sections 198 specifically provided that every order passed by the Collector under sub-section (3) shall be final, subject to the provisions of Section 333. Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act deals with the powers of revision of the Board of Revenue. Thus, the legal position is that after U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1970, which came into force on December 29, 1970, the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the appeal against the order of the Collector of Additional Collector passed under Section 198 (3) of the Act. Thus, the legal position is that after U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1970, which came into force on December 29, 1970, the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the appeal against the order of the Collector of Additional Collector passed under Section 198 (3) of the Act. The aggrieved party could only file a revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 6. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order dated June 7, 1972 of the Additional Commissioner is in contravention of the law and without jurisdiction, and in cannot be allowed to stand. 7. I need not go into the other grounds taken in the revisions. 8. The result is that I hereby allow the revisions filed by the State and set aside the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Additional Commissioner. 9. This order governs connected revisions Nos. 1037 to 1012 of 1971-72/Bareilly.