Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2090 (ALL)

Jairam v. State of U. P.

2013-08-12

SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Heard Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner applicant, Sri D.N. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 complainant and Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. The Writ petition arose out of proceedings for cancellation of patta, which had been granted to the petitioner applicant in 1975-76. Initially, the application for cancellation of patta filed by respondent No. 4 on 05.08.1985 was rejected on 30.06.1986, however review filed after about 19 years (on 31.05.2005) was allowed on 06.07.2006 by Collector, Jhansi, order dated 30.06.1986 was set aside and the case for cancellation of patta was restored. The said order was challenged through the writ petition. Through the judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, I dismissed the writ petition, directed the Collector/Additional Collector to decide the matter expeditiously and further directed that in case patta was canceled, damages at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per hectare per year should also be recovered from the petitioner. 3. This review petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18.09.2012. 4. The main ground on which I dismissed the writ petition was that at two occasions land had been allotted to the petitioner; at one occasion four acres and after about a year on the second occasion about 4.5 acres. After filing of the review application, pursuant to the judgment dated 18.09.2012 (sought to be reviewed), Collector decided the matter on 30.03.2013. Copy of the said order has been filed along with affidavit filed in the review petition by respondent No. 4. The Collector categorically held that petitioner was not allotted land twice and the earlier proposal dated 28.02.1975 proposing to allot 4 acres of land was not finalised. Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 4 admitted this position that pursuant to resolution dated 28.02.1975, no effective allotment was made. Accordingly, the main basis of my judgment has vanished. The other points like previous residence in another state etc. taken in the cancellation application by respondent No. 4 were not so serious, which could warrant review after 19 years ignoring the limitation at both the occasions; in filing cancellation application and thereafter in filing the review. Accordingly, the main basis of my judgment has vanished. The other points like previous residence in another state etc. taken in the cancellation application by respondent No. 4 were not so serious, which could warrant review after 19 years ignoring the limitation at both the occasions; in filing cancellation application and thereafter in filing the review. At the earlier occasion, the application was rejected on the ground that it had been filed after 10.11.1982 hence by virtue of Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it was barred by time. 5. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 18.09.2012 is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 06.07.2006 through which Collector allowed the review petition of respondent No. 4 is set aside. Consequent order of the Collector dated 30.03.2013 automatically stands recalled. Revision filed against the order dated 30.03.2013 may be dismissed as infructuous. Revision Allowed.