Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 939 (ALL)

State v. Rama

1984-11-13

KAUSHAL KISHORE

body1984
JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- In this reference dated 10-10-1983 the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated 28-2-1979 be set aside and the allotment made on 2-6-1976 in favour of Rama and Chanda be cancelled. 2. I have heard the learned DGC(R) for the State/Gaon Sabha and have also perused the record. None appeared for the opposite party despite due notice. 3. The learned trial court had started the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act suo-moto on the report from the Tehsildar. It could not dismiss the case on the ground that there was no evidence on the file to show that the land allotted was 'Gochar', land of public utility. The responsibility of full enquiry rests on the trial court itself and in these proceedings started suo-moto, the Tehsildar or the LMC cannot be held responsible to produce evidence. Rather, the court must obtain evidence to complete the enquiry to its satisfaction. I also agree with the learned Additional Commissioner that by mere cultivation by someone the classification of land-varg 6 in this case-would not change. 4. It must also be remembered that the Gaon Sabha is a juristic person acting in the matter of management of land, allotments and litigations through the LMC which must act within the limits set up by law. If the LMC commits a mistake overstepping its scope, the Gaon Sabha cannot be held liable and at the instance of State or the Gaon Sabha necessary remedy would be possible. Therefore, in spite of allotment by the LMC of the land of public utility, the allotment has to be cancelled, being against the provisions of law and the allottee cannot claim any rights accrued to him by the erroneous allotment by the LMC. The learned trial court failed to appreciate these aspects and by not completing the enquiry and not cancelling the allotment, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 5. Accordingly, I accept the reference, set aside the order dated 28-2-1979 by the learned trial court and cancel the allotment made in favour of the opposite parties Rama and Chanda.