Buddhu v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1983 DIGILAW 933 (ALL)

JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This division bench has been constituted by the order of Senior Member/Chairman, Board of Revenue dated March 14, 1983 for deciding the following question referred by Sri G.S. Tewari learned Member by his order dated January 18, 1983. "Whether the revocation of Para 58 of the Gaon Samaj Manual which provided to reserve 8% of the total area of village for public purposes, will operate retrospectively or not?" 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that the revision is a continuation of the suit for proceeding and unless the revision is decided the suit or proceeding cannot be deemed to have been decided finally, therefore, by revocation of para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual which does not exist now the reservation of 8% of the total area of village will not be applicable because it does not exist. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1970 Alld. 561, 1971 R.D. 347, 1978 R.D. 131, A.I.R. 1954 Hyd. 204(F.B.) and Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha, A.I.R. 1974 (S.C.) 1178. 4. It has been argued in reply that the validity of the Patta will have to be looked into at the date of the allotment according to law and rules then prevailing, therefore the revocation of Para 58 of Gaon Sabha Manual can be deemed to have effect from the date of revocation and not prior to it. 5. In Hari Ram v. Deputy Director and others, 1971 R.D. 347, it has been held by a division bench of the Hon'ble High Court as follows:- "If a revision is filed within reasonable time, suit or a proceeding should, speaking broadly, be deemed to continue until the revision is decided. Consequently, where a revision is filed the proceeding will be deemed to be pending." 6. In A.I.R. 1970 Allahabad page 561 (D.B.) (H.C.) - The Notified Area Committee and another v. Sri Ram Singhasan Prasad Kalwar. It has been laid down that:- "A statute relating to remedial law may properly, in several instances be given retrospective application." 7. In Waheed Hasan Khan v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1954 Hyd. 204(F.B.) it has been laid down that:- "No proceedings can be pursued under a repealed act through began before the repeal unless by special exception." 8. It has been laid down that:- "A statute relating to remedial law may properly, in several instances be given retrospective application." 7. In Waheed Hasan Khan v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1954 Hyd. 204(F.B.) it has been laid down that:- "No proceedings can be pursued under a repealed act through began before the repeal unless by special exception." 8. It has been laid down in A.I.R. 1954 (S.C.) page 1178. It has been laid down that:- "Ordinarily a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution. But it is open to a court (including a court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances." 9. Para 58 of the G.S. and B.P.S. Manual provided formerly 10% and after-wards 8% of the total area of the village for being reserved for planned use, that reservation was revoked by G.O. No. 2067-11(28) 143 EK-Ra-13-71 dated September 9, 1978. Even when that para was not revoked in cases of non-availability of other vacant land it could be allotted to dependent of Jawan killed in the defence of the country vide D.O. No. 146(S.B.)-1-A-5 dated October 28, 1965 read with G.O. No. 6159 17-339-70 dated December 29, 1970. 10. Thus it had been the policy of the Government to allow allotment of even 8% of total area of Agricultural land reserved for planned use even before the provision of Para 58 of the G.S. and B.P.S. Manual was revoked. 11. By revoking the provision of the said Para 58 of the G.S. and B.P.S. Manual the policy of the Government had changed and the reserved area has been allowed to be used for some beneficial purposes of agriculture etc. than allowing it to remain vacant and barren. This change in Government policy will have to be kept into mind in deciding the question referred for decision to this bench. 12. than allowing it to remain vacant and barren. This change in Government policy will have to be kept into mind in deciding the question referred for decision to this bench. 12. If the restoration has been removed by revoking the provision of said Para 58 of the G.S. and B.P.S. Manual such land which was covered by the said restoration can be allotted for agricultural and other purposes by the L.M.C. Then it does not stand to reason that allotments made prior to the said revocation should be annulled on the ground that at the time of that allotment the revocation did not exist when it exists when the final order in revision is to be passed which is continuation of the suit and proceedings. 13. The policy of the Government of revoking para 58 of the G.S. and B.P.S. Manual should be taken into consideration as a subsequent event. The revision being continuation of the proceeding for cancellation of the patta in view of the subsequent event of revocation of the said Para in view of the said Supreme Court ruling, leave no room for holding that revocation of the said para should be taken into consideration only from the date of the revocation and not prior to it because there as no exception clause for applying the provision of Para 58 of the G.S. and B.P.S. Manual to cases pending prior to the date of revocation, therefore, the revision should be decided according to the existing law. The revocation of any provision does not mean amendment but means only annulment. 14. The matter was therefore rightly decided by Mr. J.S. Gupta in Lal Kesho Ram v. U.P. State 1978 R.D. 131. Therefore our answer to the question referred is as follows:- "The revocation for para 58 of the Gaon Samaj Manual which provided to reserve 8% of the total area of village for public purposes, will operate retrospectively.