Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2672 (ALL)

Prabhu Dayal and others v. State of U. P. and others

2010-08-31

KRISHNA MURARI

body2010
Krishna Murari, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 6 has been accepted by Sri Anuj Ku­mar. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, the respondents Nos. 7 to 20 are not being put to notice. However, their rights to seek clarification/modifica­tion/variation in the order, if so aggrieved, are being kept reserved. 3. Petitioners claim to have been al­lotted land by the land management committed. On a complaint made by re­spondents allotment has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr vide order dated 4.1.2008 and the revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that after amendment by U. P. Act No. 27 of 2004 in section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abo­lition & Land Reforms Act (for short the 'Act'), it is only the Collector, who is em­powered to cancel the least and thus the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magis­trate is without jurisdiction. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad 2008 (105 RD 1 has held that Collector includes only Additional Collector and the power under section 198 (4) of the Act can be exercised only by the Collector or Additional Collector. In view of the provisions of section 198 (4) and the Full Bench decision in the case of Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad (supra), there is force in the argument and the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The Revisional Court having failed to consider this aspect of the matter, the revisional or­der also becomes unsustainable. 5. In view of the above facts and dis­cussions, the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as the revisional order dated 6.3.2010 are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter stands remitted back to be decided afresh either by the Collector or by any other Additional Collector to be nominated by him in accordance with law after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Petition Allowed.