Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2216 (ALL)

PRAVEEN KUMAR v. COLLECTOR, FIROZABAD

2011-09-21

A.P.SAHI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 6.6.2011 Annexure 6 to the writ petition whereby it has been held that the revision filed under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act in relation to the dispute raised by the petitioner was not maintainable and accordingly the revision has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are the sons of Ram Raksha Pal Singh. The Tahsildar had proceeded against the father of the petitioners alleging unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. An order came to be passed on 14.3.2011 in the said proceedings. The petitioners were admittedly not parties to the said proceedings nor any notice had been issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar. While proceeding to decide the matter the Tahsildar had made certain observations about the support being extended by the petitioners to their father in relation to the unauthorised occupation which was subject matter of the said dispute. 3. Aggrieved by the said comments contained in the order under Section 122-B of the 1950 Act, the petitioners came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 26096 of 2011 which was disposed of on 10.5.2011 by the following order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for deleting the observations and comments made against the petitioners in the order dated 14th March, 2011 passed by the Assistant Collector in a case under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Against the aforesaid order any aggrieved person has right to file a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner having adequate statutory remedy against the order impugned, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner may seek his remedy by filing revision which may be considered in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 4. This Court therefore directed the Collector to proceed to entertain the revision on behalf of the petitioners for expunging the said comments made on the petitioners. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court simply recited the language of sub-section 4-A of Section 122-B of the 1950 Act. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 4. This Court therefore directed the Collector to proceed to entertain the revision on behalf of the petitioners for expunging the said comments made on the petitioners. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court simply recited the language of sub-section 4-A of Section 122-B of the 1950 Act. 5. The Collector by the impugned order by a strange process of reasoning has held that the revision is not maintainable as the Collector does not have authority to decide the revision under Section 333 of the 1950 Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction of the Division Bench has been over looked and the Collector has committed a manifest error by treating the revision under Section 333 of the 1950 Act whereas the revision itself, if maintainable, could be traced to the provisions of sub-section 4-A of Section 122-B of the Act and not otherwise. 7. Learned standing counsel submits that technically a revision under Section 333 cannot be entertained by the Collector and as such the matter can be remanded back to him to decide the matter in the light of the Division Bench order. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel a pure question of law has arisen in view of the submissions raised therefore the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage itself as I am of the considered opinion that this matter need not travel between this Court and any other authority further and it should be decided at this stage itself. 9. A perusal of sub-section 4-A of Section 122-B would demonstrate that any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under the said provisions has a right of revision before the Collector. The revision is therefore maintainable under the said section if a person is aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Collector. In the instant case the petitioners had neither been put to notice nor an ultimate order has been passed against the petitioners. Therefore they are not affected parties and they cannot be said to be aggrieved persons in relation to an order of the nature contemplated under Section 122-B of the Act. 10. In the instant case the petitioners had neither been put to notice nor an ultimate order has been passed against the petitioners. Therefore they are not affected parties and they cannot be said to be aggrieved persons in relation to an order of the nature contemplated under Section 122-B of the Act. 10. While disposing of the matter the Assistant Collector has made certain comments on the supporting acts alleged to have been extended by the petitioners without giving them any notice of opportunity. In such a situation the said observations are in the nature of obiter and not binding upon the petitioners. 11. Accordingly the Collector may be ultimately right that the order was not revisable at the instance of the petitioners, but the Collector, was definitely in error in not proceeding to decide the revision once a direction has been issued by this Court on 10.5.2011. 12. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. The objection taken by the Collector to the maintainability of the revision is over ruled with a direction that the observations made against the petitioners in the order dated 14.3.2011 shall be treated to be obiter and shall not be utilised against them. —————