Murari Lal v. State — 1982 DIGILAW 1226 (ALL)

JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a reference dated April 28, 1980 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, recommending to set aside order dated September 7, 1979 passed by learned Additional Collector, Mainpuri under Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951 cancelling the Pattas dated December 10, 1975 on the application of Neksu, as no notice to the allottees was issued mentioning specific grounds for proposed cancellation of the Pattas. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It was argued that notices for cancellation of Pattas should have been issued. Reliance has been placed on 1957 R.D. 197, 1972 R.D. 43, 1971 S.C. 1045, 1978 A.W.C. (Revenue) 11 and 1977 R.D. 154. It was further argued that proviso to Section 198 (5) should not be made applicable to old proceedings as it violates principle of natural justice and the matter was not so looked in 1982 R.D. 214. 4. It was argued in reply that Section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act was violated and rules 173 to 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules were not complied with and the Pattas were rightly cancelled by the Additional Collector and as the proceeding is pending since prior to August 18, 1980 in view of proviso of sub-section (5) of Section 198 incorporated by U.P. Act No. XX of 1982 no notice as mentioned in sub-section (5) of the Act is required in such proceedings and it has been rightly held so in 1982 R.D. 214; that the permission of S.D.O. for Murari Lal Up Pradhan was subsequent to date of allotment being dated December 24, 1975 and the allotment is of December 10, 1975 and no such permission was taken for Ram Sanehi and Sahtoo who are brothers of Murari Lal Up Pradhan, therefore, the recommendation should not be accepted and the order of the learned Additional Collector should be maintained. 5. In Gobarhan Lal v. Govind etc. 1957 R.D. 179, it was held as follows:- "There is o specific provision for issuing notice to the lessees before the lease granted by the Land Management Committee could be cancelled. 5. In Gobarhan Lal v. Govind etc. 1957 R.D. 179, it was held as follows:- "There is o specific provision for issuing notice to the lessees before the lease granted by the Land Management Committee could be cancelled. But in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary the ordinary rule of law that an order should not be passed adversely to a party without giving it an opportunity to be heard holds goods even in a proceeding under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, specially when the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the Act." 6. It was held in Kukum Singh v. Gaon Sabha 1978 A.W.C (Revenue) 11 that in suo moto action for cancellation of allotment of land it is the duty of court to issue proper notice specifying ground on which allotment order was to be cancelled, if no such notice is given prejudice is to cause to every party and the whole proceeding is vitiated in law. 7. It was held in Changu Lal and others v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, Camp at Allahabad and others as follows:- "It was no doubt, open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reject the revision if a necessary party had not been impleaded in the revision as indeed he did, but he was not justified in setting aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the exercise of his suo moto power under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It could have been more appropriately done by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who was seized of the appeal, after making an enquiry whether the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was as a result of any lawful agreement between the parties or not. Instead the Deputy Director of Consolidation trenched upon the powers of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) conferred by the Act. This, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not do. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 843 and A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1585, followed". 8. Sunder Lal v. State 1977 R.D. 153 is not applicable to the present case. In it, it was decided that the L.M.C. and not Gaon Sabha is to be impleaded as necessary party in proceeding under Section 198 of Act I of 1951. 9. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 843 and A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1585, followed". 8. Sunder Lal v. State 1977 R.D. 153 is not applicable to the present case. In it, it was decided that the L.M.C. and not Gaon Sabha is to be impleaded as necessary party in proceeding under Section 198 of Act I of 1951. 9. It will be clear that although no notice was prescribed to be given in matters of cancellation of allotments but invoking the principle of natural justice it was held as mentioned above in the aforesaid cases that if no notices are given the proceedings are vitiated. But if, there is statutory prohibition for giving such notices as has been the practice will not be justified. 10. It was held in 1957 R.D. 179(supra) that in the absence of any specific provisions to the contrary the ordinary rule of law that an order should not be passed adversely to the party without giving it an opportunity to be heard holds good as required by principle of natural justice. 10-A. But if there is a provision to the contrary to such ordinary rule of law and principle of natural justice then such notice cannot be held to be necessary and any proceeding cannot be held to be vitiated for want of it. 11. Section 198(5) incorporated by U.P. Act No. XX of 1982 runs as follows:- "Section 198(5):- No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-Section (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980". 12. The Proviso of sub-section (5) of Section 198 incorporated by U.P. Act XX of 1982 mentioned above is a provision to the contrary that notices as mentioned under sub-section (5) shall not be necessary in proceedings pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980. 12. The Proviso of sub-section (5) of Section 198 incorporated by U.P. Act XX of 1982 mentioned above is a provision to the contrary that notices as mentioned under sub-section (5) shall not be necessary in proceedings pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980. Therefore, in case if no notice is issued mentioning specific grounds for cancellation of Pattas in a proceedings pending on August 18, 1980 before Collector or any other court of authority cannot be held to be necessary in view of this provision to the contrary to the principle of natural justice of giving such notice which was held to be necessary before incorporation of this sub-section of the sub-section of the said proviso and the provision of the proviso is retrospective, therefore, it is held so and was rightly held so in Satya Ram v. L.M.C. 1982 R.D. 214. Therefore, the recommendation cannot be accepted as in view of the new provision no notice in required to be issued to the allottee, this provision being retrospective. 13. In view of the new provision of the proviso to sub-section 1975 R.D. 43 of Section 198 with retrospective effect regarding proceedings pending on August 18, 1980 the aforesaid rulings requiring notices to allottees are no longer good law and do not hold field now. 14. The Patta was granted on December 10, 1975 and the permission of S.D.O. was obtained for granting Pattas to Murari Lal Up Pradhan only on December 24, 1975 and no such permission was obtained for Ram Sanehi and Sahtu his brothers. The provision of Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act were, therefore, not complied with even regarding Murari Lal because previous sanction is required and were not complied with at all regarding Ram Sanehi and Sahtu who are his brothers, therefore, the Patta to the applicants were granted against the provisions of law as has been in Ram Autar v. Nathu Ram 1975 R.D. 43 and in Ram Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad 1981 R.D. 333. Therefore, the Pattas of the applicants were rightly cancelled by the trial court on consideration of material facts and evidence on record which requires no interference. 15. In view of the above, this revision application is rejected and the order of the learned Additional Collector Mainpuri cancelling the pattas of the applicants is confirmed. 16. Therefore, the Pattas of the applicants were rightly cancelled by the trial court on consideration of material facts and evidence on record which requires no interference. 15. In view of the above, this revision application is rejected and the order of the learned Additional Collector Mainpuri cancelling the pattas of the applicants is confirmed. 16. Let the trial court's record be sent to it at once for necessary action.