Ram Lakhan v. Land Management Committee — 1987 DIGILAW 646 (ALL)

JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - These revisions have been filed against the order dated 23-10-80/31-10-80 passed by the Additional Commissioner Jhansi, in revision no. 37/3 and 38/9 of 1979-80. 2. The facts of the case are that the Land Management Committee, Ramnagar, executed a lease in favour of Ram Lakhan on 20-1-66 for 13 Bighas 17 Biswas of land. It was alleged that Ram Lakhan was having a shop, and that be was the real brother of Pradhan. It was contended by the revisionist that he had been living separately from the pradhan and was not a member of a joint Hindu family, and that there was no illegality committed in the grant of the lease. L.M.C, Ramnagar, had also executed a lease on 19-6-64 in favour of Shiv Darshan, father of Durga Prasad and Motilal, revisionists in revision no. 26. Both the aforesaid leases where cancelled by the Sub-divisional Officer, Karvi, district Banda, by orders dated 26-2-79 on the ground that necessary permission under Section 28-C of Panchayat Raj Act had not been obtained in regard to the grant of leases. Two separate revisions were filed against the orders of the trial court dated 26-2-79 before the Additional Commissioner, who also dismissed the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC(R), and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that no permission under Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was necessary as there was no evidence to establish that any benefits accrued to the Pradhan. The learned counsel further says that the lease holders were living separately from their brother and as such they were not at all required to obtain permission under Section 28-C Panchayat Raj Act, that the leases were duly verified and possession was delivered to them, and that the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the leases and it was the Collector who had the authority to cancel the leases. The learned DGC (R) submits that the lease holders were not landless agricultural labourers and were not eligible persons for the grant of leases. 5. There had been an amendment in Section 198 by clause (8) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1968, known as U.P. Act No. 17 of 1968. That clause read as under : "8. Amendment of Section 198. 5. There had been an amendment in Section 198 by clause (8) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1968, known as U.P. Act No. 17 of 1968. That clause read as under : "8. Amendment of Section 198. - In Section 198 of the Principal Act,- (a) In sub-section (2), for the words, figures and brackets. "The Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division, may, on his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Land Management Committee passed under sub-section (1), enquire in the manner prescribed into an allotment made under sub-section (1)", the words, figures and brackets. "The Collector may, of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment referred to in sub-section (i), inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment", shall be substituted ; and (b) in sub-section (3), for the words "an Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division", the words. "The Collector" shall be substituted." by sub-clause (b) of clause (8), in sub-section (3) of Section 198, for the words "an Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division, the word "Collector" was substituted. But by clause (12) of said Act, transitory provisions were made for making enquiries relating to allotment, referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 198, made prior to the commencement of the said Act no. 17 of 1968 and it was provided that (a) the jurisdiction to make inquiries and pass orders under sub-section (2) of Section 198 and (b) the jurisdiction to entertain and decide suits under sub-section (4) of the said section, shall continue to vest in the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division, as if this Act had not been passed Again, there had been an amendment to Section 198 by clause (14) of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969, known as U.P. Act No. IV of 1969. In that also, by clause (23), transitory provisions were made, and the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division was authorised to proceed with the enquiry and to entertain and decide suits under sub-section (4) of Section 198 in relation to allotments referred to in sub-section (1) of the said section, made prior to the 28th day of June 1968. That clause (23) ran as under:- "23. That clause (23) ran as under:- "23. Transitory provisions-notwithstanding the amendments made in Section 198, and in Schedule II to the Principal Act, by this Act- (a) The jurisdiction to make inquiries and pass orders under subsection (2) of the said Section 198; and (b) The jurisdiction to entertain and decide suits under sub-section (4) of the said section. In relation to allotment referred to in sub-section (1) of the said section, made prior to the 28th day of June 1968, shall continue to vest in the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division as if this Act had not been passed." 6. By clause (3) of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, known as Act No. 35 of 1970, there have been further amendments. By U.P. Act no. 17, of 1968, in Schedule II of the Act, serials 20 and 20 (a) were substituted but these SI. Nos. were omitted by the U.P. Act No. 35 of 1970. By U.P. Act No. 35 of 1970, the transitory provisions made by Act no. 17 of 1968 and U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969, were also omitted. From this, the intention of the legislature appears to be very explicit that the Assistant Collector in charge of the subdivision will cease to have jurisdiction to make enquiries and entertain and decide suits under sub-section (4) of Section 198. The transitory provisions introduced by clause (23) of U.P. Act IV of 1969 ceased to exist by the promulgation of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970. The said Ordinance was repealed after the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act 35 of 1970 came into force with effect from 28th September, 1970 thus, all such cases as were pending on 28th September, 1970 in respect of allotments made by the Land Management Committees, were to be looked into and dealt with by the Collector, and not by the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division. In the instant case, the orders regarding cancellation of lease were passed by the Sub-divisional Officer on 26-2-79. On that day, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with any enquiry and cancel the leases granted by the Land Management Committee. Consequently, the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 26-2-79 are without jurisdiction and are not sustainable in law. On that day, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with any enquiry and cancel the leases granted by the Land Management Committee. Consequently, the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 26-2-79 are without jurisdiction and are not sustainable in law. In view of this, the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 23-10-80/31-10-80 are also not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In the result, these revisions succeed, the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner are hereby set aside, and the matter is sent back to the Collector, Banda to proceed with the matter after issuing show cause notices and making the allottees and the Land Management Committee a party to the proceedings. 8. This order governs Revisions no. 25 and 26 of 1980-81/District, Banda.