Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 929 (ALL)

MOHD. YAMIN v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

2012-04-18

SUNIL HALI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—The present petitioners are residents of village Jalalabad, Pargana Thana Bhawn, District Muzaffarnagar. All the petitioners claim to be landless agricultural labourers, belonging to the scheduled caste and other backward community. They applied for allotment of land in their favour under Section 122 of U.P.Z.A&L.R Act. The allotment orders in this behalf were issued by Sub Divisional Officer on 27.2.1979. After the allotment they were put in possession of the land allotted in their favour. 2. On an application moved by one Niyamatullah and others seeking cancellation of the allotment orders before the Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act, the Additional Collector issued notices to the parties. An order was passed by the Additional Collector cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioners on 5.8.1981. Revision against the said order was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut. An application for impleadment of some of the petitioners were filed before the Additional Commissioner. The revision petition was dismissed on 3.3.1982. However, one set of the petitioners amongst the petitioners herein filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. An application for impleadment of some of the petitioners were filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the application for impleadment as petitioners. Revision Petition was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Additional Collector to pass a fresh decision. On remand the Additional Collector after hearing the parities, holding a detailed inquiry, found that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was not valid. A revision was filed against the order before the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur who vide order dated 22.12.1998 dismissed the revision petition. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties. 4. A short grievance of the petitioners is that the land defined as public utility land in U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was allotted to the petitioners by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The allotment of land reserved for public utility can be allotted to a person without confirmation of Bhumidhari rights. This is clearly contemplated by Section 132 of the Act that no Bhumidhari right shall accrue in lands set apart for public purposes under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. 2 and 3. The allotment of land reserved for public utility can be allotted to a person without confirmation of Bhumidhari rights. This is clearly contemplated by Section 132 of the Act that no Bhumidhari right shall accrue in lands set apart for public purposes under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. A complete procedure for allotment of vacant land vested in the Land Management Committee under Section 194 or any other provision of the Act has been provided therein. Section 198 is in the nature of self code. It lays down the order of preferences in admitting persons for allotment of land as Bhumidar with non transferable right. Section 197 contemplates that the land management committee with the previous approval of Assistant Collector in-charge of sub division shall have the right to admit any person as assami to any land falling in any of the classes mentioned under Section 132 where the land is vacant and has vested in the land management committee or has come into the possession of the LMC under Section 194 or under any other provision of the Act. 6. The interpretation of the two provisions reveals that there is no bar to allot public utility land as defined in Section 132 of the Act. It only provides that no Bhumidhari right shall accrue to any person on the said land. The land allotted to a person under Section 197 is permissible and assami rights can be conferred upon the person seeking allotment. The only exception provided under Section 197 in that the land should be vacant and has vested in the land management committee or has come into possession of the land management committee under Section 194. The aforementioned discussion clearly emerges that assami rights can be conferred on a person who are landless agricultural labourers, belonging to scheduled caste and backward community. The allotment has to be made under Section 198 sub-clause (4) of the Act, 1950. 7. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is that the allotment has been made of a land which is reserved for public utility. However, no finding has been recorded in this respect by Additional Commissioner. It may be noted that the petitioners claim that the land which has been allotted to them is Usar, Banjar and Naveen Parti land and is not a public utility land. 8. However, no finding has been recorded in this respect by Additional Commissioner. It may be noted that the petitioners claim that the land which has been allotted to them is Usar, Banjar and Naveen Parti land and is not a public utility land. 8. The respondent No. 6 in his counter-affidavit has stated that there was no land management committee which has allotted the land to the petitioners. Allotment made in favour of the petitioners was by an incompetent authority. He has further stated that the land is situated in an area which has been declared as Town Area. It has been contended that allotment has been made by S.D.M. who is not competent to deal with the matter. These are the contentions, which were addressed by the Additional Commissioner while dealing with the revision. He has remanded the case back to the Additional Collector concerned. In his order, the respondent No. 1 has directed the Collector to hold the inquiry on the following grounds : (a) as to whether the land was the public utility land which can be allotted to the petitioners? (b) whether procedural safeguards have been complied with while allotting land in favour of the petitioners? 9. In so far as the first contention is concerned, it is clearly revealed that any land, which is mentioned in Section 132 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, can be allotted to any person, as defined in Section 198 sub-section (1) with assami rights. The only area where the determination is required to be made by the Additional Collector is as to whether necessary safeguards have been followed while alloting the land to the petitioners. It may not be out of place to mention here that the land was alloted to the petitioners for the last more than three decades. While examining the manner where by allotments have been made the Collector will have the power to determine (1) as to whether they were eligible under the Rules for allotment of the land; (2) whether land has been allotted following the scale provided under the Rules? 10. In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served. ——————