Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 510 (ALL)

Brijendra Singh v. Ram Prakash

1992-04-13

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 16.9.1991. passed in revision No. 45/1990-91 against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kirawali, district Agra dated 25.2.1991. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Land Management committee, Korai, Tahsil Kirawali, district Agra passed resolution for the allotment of abadi land to opposite parties on 13.9.1990. A report was submitted to the Sub-Division Officer for approval of the allotment which he approved on 25.2.1991. Against this order the revision was filed under Section 333-A of U.P.Act No. 1 of 1951 before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision on the ground that no revision lies against approval. Against that order this revision has been filed before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties argued at length on the point of maintainability of the revision. The learned counsel fro the revisionist argued that Sub-Divisional Officer has not applied his mind, he has just written in his order "approved", that is no order in the eye of law, hence the order needs to be set aside in the exercise of the revisional power by this court. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since the allotment has been completed only remedy lies in filing the application for cancellation of allotment of abadi land. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be reviewed at this stage. 5. Now it has been laid down in 1986 R.D. Page 8 by Hon'ble High Court that the order passing either in favour of the approval or rejecting the approval of the resolution of Land Management Committee is reviseable order and it is judicial order.the Sub-Divisional Officer should apply its mind when he is approving of rejecting the allotment proceeding. On this legal position it is necessary to consider the merit of the proposal of the Land Management Committee when the allotment file has come up to this court. In all 44 persons were allotee abadi sites at the rates of Rs. 100/- Sq. yard per allottee on the meeting of the Land Management Committee dated 13.9.1990 in plots No. 247, 249 and 250. In all 44 persons were allotee abadi sites at the rates of Rs. 100/- Sq. yard per allottee on the meeting of the Land Management Committee dated 13.9.1990 in plots No. 247, 249 and 250. In all 24 persons were allotted land from plot No. 250 and 16 Persons from plot No. 247 and 4 persons from plot No. 249. In the Khasra extract 1397 fasli plot No. 2490 recorded as abadi in column 18 of the khasra and in column 20 ten Neem trees, 6 Babool trees and four other trees are recorded. Plot No. 250 is recorded as Banjar In khatauni 1395 fasli to 1400 fasli plot No. 250 is recorded as reserved abadi. Plot No. 249 is abadi and plot No. 247 is recorded as Banjar. In this way no allotment regarding the plots NO. 247 and 249 is possible because plot no. 247 area 10-4-2-0 is recorded as banjar and plot No. 249 area 12-12-0 is recorded as old abadi. The Land Management committee has no right to allot the abadi land from old abadi unless somebody has abandoned the old abadi site which has been included in the property of the Gaon Sabha and s vacant. The Banjar land can be only allotted to the preferential categories of the persons for the allotment of site under Section 122-C of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. The present allotment is not of that category of the allottees. The plot No. 250 is earmarked for abadi purpose and is a new abadi site but it is reserved. Whether this land is reserved for allotment of the general category of the allottees or to the persons entitled under Section 122-C of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957? These facts has not been considered by the revenue authorities while proposing for the approval of the allotment. The Sub-Divisional Officer has not applied his mind in any way. He has also not applied his mind why 100Sq. yards of abadi site was given to the allottee. If there is a need of the allotment of abadi then full area as prescribed under the Act should be allotted to the allottees unless their old abadi site is adjacent to the abadi allotted to them. He has also not applied his mind why 100Sq. yards of abadi site was given to the allottee. If there is a need of the allotment of abadi then full area as prescribed under the Act should be allotted to the allottees unless their old abadi site is adjacent to the abadi allotted to them. In these circumstances of the case the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is apparently illegal on the face of records and it cannot be sustained when the record has come before this court for examination. 6. I, therefore, set aside the order of the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer and direct him to afford opportunity to all the interested persons to be heard before approval can be granted. He will examine the land whether can be allotted for abadi or not then he will consider the requirement of the person and only then the abadi land could be allotted to them in accordance with the provisions of law. After considering these circumstances, the S.D.O. will accord his approval or disapproval.