Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 257 (UTT)

Jai Pal v. Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur

2013-05-14

V.K.BIST

body2013
Judgment : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. On 20th April, 1993, the Land Management Committee, Lav, Pargana-Bhagwanpur, Tehsil-Roorkee, District Haridwar passed resolution granting Patta (lease) in question in favour of the petitioners. Possession was also given to the petitioners. It is asserted that the petitioners have their cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. On 20.01.1994, the said resolution was accepted by the Additional Collector, Haridwar. Thereafter, on 18.03.1994, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed application under Section 198 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and prayed for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioners. On the said complaint, the Addl. Collector, Haridwar issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Thereafter, on 31st March, 1999, the Addl. Collector, Haridwar cancelled the allotment granted in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of Addl. Collector, the petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner, Saharanpur. On 08.04.1999, the Commissioner, Saharanpur allowed the revision preferred by the petitioners and set-aside the order dated 31.03.1999 passed by the Addl. Collector, Haridwar. The Commissioner, Saharanpur remanded the matter to the Collector, Haridwar for deciding the same at his own level. Thereafter, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed review application before the Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur, who vide order dated 25th January, 2000 allowed the review application. While reviewing the order, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur held that the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to pass order under Section 198 (4) of the Act. 3. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur dated 25.01.2000 and also the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Haridwar dated 31.03.199 are illegal inasmuch as, Additional Collector, Haridwar has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 198 (4) of the Act. For appreciating the contention of the counsel for the petitioners, Section 3 (4) of the Act, which defines the word ‘Collector’ is being reproduced hereunder:- “‘Collector’ means an officer appointed as Collector under the provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector of First Class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any function of a Collector under this Act.” 4. Section 198(4) of the Act provides that the Collector may cancel the allotment and the lease. Section 198 (4) is also being reproduced hereunder:- “The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any.” 5. From conjoint reading of Section 3(4) and Section 198(4) of the Act, it necessarily follows that power of cancellation of allotment under the Act can be exercised only by the Collector appointed under the provision of U.P. Land Revenue Act and by an Assistant Collector of First Class specially empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge the function of a Collector relating to cancellation of allotment of a land and by no other officer. Additional Collector has not been mentioned in Section 198 and in Section 3(4) of the Act. Additional Collectors are appointed by the State Government under Section 14-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and they hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act provides that an Additional Collector can exercise such power and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. Thus, the Additional Collector is delegatee of the Collector. Nothing has been brought on record, which may suggest that any notification in the Gazette was issued by the State Government conferring the power to the Additional Collector. 6. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Additional Collector has no power to cancel the lease (Patta) granted under Section 198 (4) of the Act. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2000 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur and the judgment and order dated 31.03.1999 passed by Addl. Collector, Haridwar are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that liberty may be given to the Collector, Haridwar to proceed afresh. It is always open for the competent authority to initiate proceeding under the relevant provision of law.