Raghunandan v. U. P. State — 1987 DIGILAW 916 (ALL)

JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11-5-78 passed by Sri. V.S. Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision No. 43 of 1977-78. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on a complaint of Ratiya and others, suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 against Raghunandan and Gaya Prasad. Objections were filed by Gaya Prasad and Raghunandan alleging that leases were legally executed, that they were residents of village Khakora, and that they were landless agricultural labourers. Leases were cancelled by the learned Collector, Jhansi, Sri Devi Dayal. Against that order of the Collector, a revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal on 11-5-78, holding that Damodar, son of Raghunandan, and brother-in-law of Gaya Prasad, was a member of Land Management Committee on the date of the grant of leases, that Gaya Prasad was originally a resident of Tahsil Charkhari, district Hamirpur, and that the leases were executed without prior permission of the Collector, that plots numbers were not announced by beat of drum, and that the order of preference was not observed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned DGC (R), and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that leases were properly granted and there was due publicity and circulation of agenda, and that the order was passed on a wrong presumption that Damodar, son of Raghunandan and brother-in-law of Gaya Prasad was a member of the Land Management Committee when the leases were granted. Relying upon a ruling of this Court reported in 1986 R.D. 47, Dharam Singh v. L.M.C. Allipur and others the learned counsel submits that the papers relating to the grant of leases were with the L.M.C. and as such it was not incumbent upon the revisionists to establish that the formalities prior to the grant of leases were completed in accordance with the provisions of law. He also submits that no benefits were derived by the member of the Land Management Committee by grant of leases to the lessees and in the absence of any evidence on this score the provisions of Section 28-C of Panchayat Raj Act were not attracted to the grant of leases to the lessees. 5. He also submits that no benefits were derived by the member of the Land Management Committee by grant of leases to the lessees and in the absence of any evidence on this score the provisions of Section 28-C of Panchayat Raj Act were not attracted to the grant of leases to the lessees. 5. So far as the question of prior permission of Collector was concerned, in the absence of any such evidence, no permission was to be granted by the Collector or grant of leases in favour of the lessees. 6. The learned Collector says that Gaya Prasad was a resident of district Hamirpur. The leases were granted on 23-6-70 and on that date the order of preference as provided under Section 198 (1) was as below:- "198 (1). In the admission of persons to land as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, or asami under Section 195 or Section 197 (hereinafter in this section referred to as allotment of land), the Land Management Committee shall, subject to any order made by a Court under Section 178, observe the following order of preference :- (a) landless widow, sons, unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle of a person who has lost his life by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union ; (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union ; (c) a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe ; (d) any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle; (e) to (h)..........I...." Admittedly, the persons who were granted leases were not covered by sub-clause (c) of Section 198 (1). They were covered by sub-clause (d) of Section 198 (1) viz., 'any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle'. This is a finding recorded by both the courts below that Gaya Prasad was a resident of village Mawaiya in district Hamirpur, and as such he was not entitled to grant of a lease in the Gaon Sabha circle or khakora, 7. It has also been observed by the learned Collector that in the grant of leases provisions contained in Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not followed. That rule reads as under :- "173. It has also been observed by the learned Collector that in the grant of leases provisions contained in Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not followed. That rule reads as under :- "173. Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission to land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made." 8. I find that provisions of Rule 173, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not complied with. Consequently, leases granted in favour of the lessees were not in accordance with the provisions of law. With these observations, this revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.