Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2737 (ALL)

Indra Mani v. Upper Commissioner Azamgarh

2013-11-07

MANOJ MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case as they appear on record are that seeking cancellation of an allotment dated 22nd February, 1984, the petitioners, on 11th January, 1990, filed an application under Section 198(4) of the Act, on which the Additional Collector issued notice to the parties on 5th January, 1993. Later, the application was dismissed on 15th February, 2001. Though the order dated 15th February, 2001 is not on record, but from the order dated 9th November, 2001 (Annexure-'5' to the writ petition), it appears that application under Section 198(4) of the Act was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application seeking recall of order dated 15th February, 2001, which was rejected on 9th November, 2001 by the Additional Collector, Mau. Against rejection of the recall application, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Court of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 17th May, 2003. It is against the orders dated 17th May, 2003 and 9th November, 2001 that the instant petition has been filed. 3. On 6th November, 2013, when the matter was taken up, the following order was passed by this Court : "The application of the petitioners seeking cancellation of allotment under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, has been rejected on ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, as provided under sub-Section (6) of Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It has been found that the allotment was made on 22.02.1984 and as per the period of limitation, the application seeking its cancellation was maintainable up to 21.02.1989, whereas the petitioner filed application on 11.01.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for sometime to prepare the matter so as to assist the Court as to whether the authority concerned has any power to condone the delay. As prayed, put up tomorrow." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any provision or authority to demonstrate that the delay could be condoned, however, he submitted that if the allotment proceedings are vitiated by fraud then there is no limtation for annulling the allotment. As prayed, put up tomorrow." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any provision or authority to demonstrate that the delay could be condoned, however, he submitted that if the allotment proceedings are vitiated by fraud then there is no limtation for annulling the allotment. To support his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Giri and others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, reported in 2010 (109) RD 566 . 5. I have carefully perused the judgment of this Court in Suresh Giri's case (supra). A perusal thereof reveals that under section 198(6) of the Act, the period of limitation provided for issuance of notice, either on suo motu exercise of powers, or on application by a person aggrieved, under Section 198(4) of the Act, is 5 years from the date of allotment or up to 10th November, 1987, whichever be later, in the case of allotment of land after 10th November, 1980. In paragraph 19 of the said judgment, though, the court held that there can be no limitation in the case of fraud, but it observed that for cancellation of an allotment on ground of fraud, independent exercise has to be made by the authorities concerned where, on the basis of relevant material, it has reason to believe that allotment is based on fraud. So far as the proceedings under section 198(4) are concerned, notice cannot be issued for cancellation after the prescribed period of limitation in view of section 198(6) of the Act. Thus, the authority in Suresh Giri's case (supra) does not help the petitioner, rather it goes against him. Even otherwise, a perusal of the revisional order would reveal that the Naib Tehsildar submitted a report on 30th December, 1992 disclosing that the allottees were agricultural labours belonging to Scheduled Caste and that the petitioners, being illegal occupants, to protect their illegal possession had filed the application. The revisional court found that the application of the petitioners was not bona fide, accordingly, the revision was dismissed with costs. 6. In view of the discussion made above, as admittedly the application of the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation, and the proceedings were barred by limitation provided under section 198(6) of the Act, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. 6. In view of the discussion made above, as admittedly the application of the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation, and the proceedings were barred by limitation provided under section 198(6) of the Act, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.