Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 332 (ALL)

Gotai Das v. Abhilakh Kumar

1989-04-06

R.P.GUPTA

body1989
JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member. - The present revision was filed by Gotai Das against Abhilakh Kumar Tewari, Gaon Sabha and L. M. C. in the Court of Commissioner, Allahabad which was referred to this court by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad vide his order dated 20-10-83 with the recommendation that the order dated 1-2-82 passed by the Additional Collector Allahabad under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act should be set aside and the case should be remanded for to retrial by this order. The learned Additional Collector abated the case under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by Gotai Das for cancellation of Assami Patta dated 17-7-72 granted by L.M.C. to Abhilakh Kumar Tewari regarding plot No. 358/5.0.0 recorded as Talab of Gaon Sabha. The learned Additional Collector abated the case under Section 198 (9) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as amended by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the case was not covered by Section 198 (9) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such it could not have been abated. Only those cases regarding the land of 132 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are to be abated regarding which Sirdar or Bhumidhar Pattas were given with the approval of S.D.O. The present case was of Asami Patta granted under Section 197 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the L. M. C. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 justified the order of the trial court and argued that no distinction can be made between Asami of the land of Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to whom Asami Patta was given by the L. M. C. or to an Asami who will be deemed as Asami of those land under Section 198 (9) (a) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and as such the present case was rightly abated. The learned D.G.C. (R) argued that the intention of the legislature was to regularise the occupation of the allottees of the land mentioned under Section 132 of the Act which was irregular. According to him the Patta being Sirdari or Bhumidhari of the land of Section 132 was liable to be cancelled or the face of it but now Asami rights are given to these patta holders but it does not mean that in the absence of Manadi. Agenda etc. According to him the Patta being Sirdari or Bhumidhari of the land of Section 132 was liable to be cancelled or the face of it but now Asami rights are given to these patta holders but it does not mean that in the absence of Manadi. Agenda etc. their pattas should be held as proper and valid for asami rights. The intention of the legislature simply was that such Sirdar and Bhumidhar should be deemed as Asami Patta holders from year to year. 3. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the intention of the legislature as given in para-5 of the statement of the objects and reasons as attached to the bill on the basis of which U.P. Act 20 of 1982 i.e. U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act 1982 published in the U.P. Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 20th August 1982, was passed is as under - "In order to regularise the occupation of the allottees of land mentioned under Section 132 of the said Act, which was irregular, it was also considered necessary to amend Section 198 and to confer Asami rights on such allottees." 4. To achieve this object the legislature added Section 198 (9) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as under : - "Were any person has been admitted to any land specified in Section 132 as a sirdar or bhumidhar with non-transferable rights at any time before the said date and such admission was made with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division in respect of the permissible area mentioned in sub-section (3), then notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of this Act or in the terms and conditions of the allotment of lease under which such person was admitted to that land, the following consequences, shall, with effect from the said date ensue, namely - (a) the allottee or lessee shall be deemed to be an asami of such land and shall be deemed to be holding the same from year to year, and the allotment or lease of the land to the extent mentioned above shall not be deemed to be irregular for the purpose of sub-section (4); (b) the proceedings if any, pending on the said date before the Collector or any other court or authority for the cancellation of the allotment or lease of such land, shall abate." 5. The legislature while making the provision for abatement of the proceedings under Sections 198 (9) (b) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, did not specify that the case of Asami Patta covered by Section 197 will also abate. 6. Section 198 applies regarding the Bhumidhari and Sirdari Pattas granted under Section 195 of Asami Pattas granted under Section 197 of Act. Both these sections are mentioned in Section 198 (1) of the Act. Section 198 (4) covers both these cases where the allotment can be cancelled by the Collector. If it is held that all the cases of Asami Pattas including pattas covered by Section 197 of Act will abate under the provision of Section 198 (b) of Act, then no provision will be left for the cancellation of irregular Asami Pattas granted under Section 197 of the Act. In the absence of any specific provision in Section 198 (9) of the Act. It cannot be held that cases of Asami Pattas granted under Section 197 will automatically abate. 7. In the absence of any specific provision in Section 198 (9) of the Act. It cannot be held that cases of Asami Pattas granted under Section 197 will automatically abate. 7. Thus I am of the opinion that the cancellation of Asami Pattas granted under Section 197 of the Act regarding the land mentioned in Section 132 of the Act will not abate. Only those proceedings for cancellation of pattas will abate under Section 198 (9) (b) of the Act where Sirdari or Bhumidhari Pattas of land specified in Section 132 of the Act were granted with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub-Division. 8. The result is that accepting the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner the revision is allowed and the order of the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for deciding it on merit. Parties shall bear their own costs.