Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 1123 (ALL)

Matoley v. State of U. P.

1985-11-21

H.N.SETH, N.N.MITHAL

body1985
JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, A.C.J. 1. The controversy raised in all these six writ petitions arises in similar circumstances and is identical in nature. In this view of the matter parties are agreed that any decision taken in Writ Petition No. 4037 of 1976 would also govern writ petitions No. 4038 of 1976 to 4042 of 1976. We are accordingly stating the facts of Writ Petition No. 4037 of 1976 and will decide the controversy involved in all these cases in the light of decisions arrived at in this case. 2. Petitioner Matoley was granted plot No. 814 area 9.50 acres situate in village Mabai Baoni, Pargana Kalpi, District Jalaun in pursuance of the provisions contained in U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 on 05.12.1956. He claims that after obtaining the grant, he came and settled on the said plot and in that connection he also received assistance from the State Government. On 19.05.1976 he received a notice purporting to be u/s 15A of the U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 from the Additional Collector (Ceiling), District Jalaun requiring him to show cause why the settlement of plot No. 814, made in his favor in the year 1956, be not cancelled for following two reasons: 1. The Petitioner was not a landless agricultural laborer ; and 2. The Petitioner was not a resident of district Jalaun. In response to the said notice, the Petitioner filed objections before the Additional Collector and contended that the show cause notice issued to him was invalid. He also questioned the right of the Additional Collector to cancel the settlement and contended that he was a resident of Shaheednagar and was, at the time when the plot was settled with him, landless agricultural laborer. The Additional Collector, vide his Order dated 13.09.1976 rejected the objection filed by the Petitioner; and directed that the Patter executed in his favor on 05.12.1956 be cancelled. He also directed the Tahsildar to make necessary corrections in the revenue records. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. State of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Uttar Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P. Act X of 1953) which was brought into force with effect from 05.03.1953. The Act provided for donation of land to the Bhudan Yagna and for the constitution of a Committee entrusted with the right to administer and manage all such land. 3. State of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Uttar Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P. Act X of 1953) which was brought into force with effect from 05.03.1953. The Act provided for donation of land to the Bhudan Yagna and for the constitution of a Committee entrusted with the right to administer and manage all such land. Section 14 of the Act enabled the committee or such authority or the person as the Committee with the approval of the State Government may specify, either generally or in respect of any area, to, in the manner prescribed, grant land, which under the provisions of the Act vested in it. The Act was amended by U.P. Act X of 1975 with effect from 21.01.1975. The amending Act amended the provisions of Section 14 of the Principal Act. The provision contained in Section 14 with regard to grant of land being made to landless persons was altered and a provision was made that the grant Under the Section could be made only in favour of a " landless agricultural laborer''. The amending Act further inserted a new Section 15A in the principal Act enabling the Collector to, on his own motion or on the report of the Committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any lane made u/s 14 whether before or after commencement of Uttar Pradesh figurant Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, inquire into such grant and to, if he left satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by mis-representation or fraud, cancel the same. It was, acting under this new Section 15A, that the notice was issued by the Additional Collator (Ceiling) on 19.05.1976 requiring the Petitioner to show cause why the settlement of plot made with him be not cancelled for the two reasons indicated above. 4. A perusal of Section 15A clearly indicates that the Collector has been empowered to cancel settlements under the Bhudan Yagna Act made with any person both before and after the amending Act came into force in the year 1975 on following two conditions: 1. The grant was irregular. 2. The grant had been obtained by practicing fraud or mis-representation. In the instant case it is not the case of the Respondents that the grant was being sought to be cancelled either on the ground of tread or of mis-representation. The grant was irregular. 2. The grant had been obtained by practicing fraud or mis-representation. In the instant case it is not the case of the Respondents that the grant was being sought to be cancelled either on the ground of tread or of mis-representation. Their case is that grant made in Petitioner's favor is being cancelled because in the opinion of the Respondents it was irregular. According to the Respondents, under the Act, no grant could be made in favor of the Petitioner as he was neither a landless agricultural laborer nor was he a resident of district Jalaun. 5. In order to find whether a particular grant made in favor of a person under the provisions of Bhudan Yagna Act is regular or not, the provisions of the Act as they stood at the time of making of the grant have to be looked into. In the instant case the grant was made in the year 1955, prior to the amendment of Section 14 of the Act in the year 1975. Section 14 of the Act as it stood in the year 1956 enabled the Committee to settle the land obtained under the Act with landless persons". It neither specified that such "landless persons " had also to be agricultural laborers nor that they had to be residents of the district in which the concerned land was located. Case of the Petitioner in this regard is that in the year 1956 he had no land in his name and was, as such, a landless person and the settlement made with him was quite legal. The stand taken by the Respondents in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner had obtained the grant by making mis-representation and practicing fraud, that is, by claiming to be landless person when he in fact was not such a person residing in the same locality. Further in his objections the Petitioner neither stated that he was a landless person nor did he produce any evidence in support of the claim made by him. This stand taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit cannot be accepted. Further in his objections the Petitioner neither stated that he was a landless person nor did he produce any evidence in support of the claim made by him. This stand taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit cannot be accepted. A perusal of the notice, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shows that the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner not for the reason that he was a landless person but because he was said not to be a " landless agricultural laborer ". There can be landless person without his being a landless agricultural laborer. Moreover, the order passed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) dated 20.09.1976 whereby he rejected Petitioner's objection indicates that the Petitioner did not contend before him that he was a landless person. But then, the Add tonal Collector proceeded to reject Petitioner's objection merely on the ground that he did not submit any proof in support of his claim. The order does not indicate that there was any material before the Additional Collector (Ceiling) to indicate that the Petitioner was, at the time, when the plot was settled with him, in fact not a landless person. For purposes of Section 14 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, that is in the year 1956, it was not at all material whether a landless person claiming settlement of plot was also an agricultural laborer. At that time the Section also did not imply any such qualification that the landless person to whom the land could be granted must be resident of the district in which the land was located. In this view of the matter it is evident that there was absolutely no material on the record which could lead any one to infer that the Petitioner had either been guilty of fraud or of suppressing true facts. The two grounds mentioned in the show cause notice are also not relevant to the question whether the settlement made in favor of the Petitioner in the year 1956 was or was not regular. The notice requiring the Petitioner to show because why the patter executed in his favor in the year 1956 be not cancelled for the reasons stated therein as also the entire proceedings following thereon stand vitiated. The notice requiring the Petitioner to show because why the patter executed in his favor in the year 1956 be not cancelled for the reasons stated therein as also the entire proceedings following thereon stand vitiated. The Order dated 13.09.1976 canceling the patter, executed in favor of the Petitioner in the year 1956 on the two grounds stated in the show cause notice is thus liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The Order dated 13.09.1976 is quashed. Stay Order dated 20.09.1976 is vacated.