Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1461 (ALL)

Ram Sewak Singh v. Board of Revenue.

2014-05-05

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.: - Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 11.06.2012 and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 19.09.2013, arising out of proceeding under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Land Management Committee of Gram Panchayat Susuwahi, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi (respondent-3) passed a resolution dated 17.08.2011 for construction of building for "Sarva Shiksha School" on plot 1995 (area 0.111 hectare). This plot was low level land and used to fill up with water in rainy season as such Sub-Divisional Officer did not find it suitable to construction of school building and by order dated 30.03.2012 rejected the resolution. 4. Plot 2012/2 (area 0.083 hectare) belonging to the petitioner situates by the side of plot 1995 and its level is five feet high from plot 1995 and was found suitable for construction of school building by Land Management Committee. Thereafter, Chairman and Members of Land Management Committee persuaded the petitioner for exchange of plot 2012/2 (area 0.083 hectare) from plot 1995 (area 0.111 hectare) and 595/3 (area 0.041 hectare), which were recorded as 'naveen parti' in the revenue record and vested in Gram Panchayat. Land Management Committee passed a resolution dated 04.04.2012, in respect of the aforesaid exchange. Respondent-3 filed an application (registered as Case No. 18 of 2012) under Section 161 of the Act, for exchange of the aforesaid plots. Sub-Divisional Officer called for a report from Tahsildar. Revenue Inspector submitted a report dated 21.04.2012 that rental valuation at the hereditary rate of plot 1995 was of the rate of Rs. 10/- per acre, of plot 595/3 was of the rate of Rs. 16.74 per acre and of plot 2012/2 was of the rate of Rs. 20/- per acre. Variation of valuation of the aforesaid plots were within 10%, which is within permissible limits as prescribed under the Rules and recommended for accepting the exchange. This report has been forwarded by Tahsildar with his endorsement dated 28.04.2012. 5. Before Sub-Divisional Officer, statement of Amarjeet Singh, Pradhan and Ram Sewak Singh, the petitioner were recorded on 08.05.2012, in which they gave their consent for exchange. This report has been forwarded by Tahsildar with his endorsement dated 28.04.2012. 5. Before Sub-Divisional Officer, statement of Amarjeet Singh, Pradhan and Ram Sewak Singh, the petitioner were recorded on 08.05.2012, in which they gave their consent for exchange. Thereafter one Rajeshwar Rai filed an objection, stating therein that plot 1995 was reserved for general abadi as such it was suitable for construction of school building. Then the petitioner again filed an application dated 31.05.2012. Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 11.06.2012 rejected the application for exchange on the ground that land in dispute were land of the category of Section 132 as such exchange was not permissible. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 101 of 2011-12) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Board of Revenue U.P., who by order dated 19.06.2013 found that earlier resolution for exchange was rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 30.03.2012, which was not challenged by Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat passed a fresh resolution dated 04.04.2012 for exchange, which appears to have been passed to give undue benefit to the petitioner. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Board of Revenue U.P., proceeded on incorrect premises that Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 30.03.2012 rejected resolution for exchange. Although by order dated 30.03.2012, Sub-Divisional Officer did not grant permission for construction of school building in plot 1995 as it was found to be low level land and used to be fill up with water during rainy reason. Sub-Divisional Officer has illegally held that land was reserved for 'general abadi' during consolidation as such its exchange was not possible, although under Section 29-C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on failure of utilizing the land earmarked for any particular public purpose, its use can be changed for other purpose. In consolidation, plot 1995 was reserved for 'general abadi' but due to low level land and filling up with water in rainy season, plot 1995 was found unsuitable for construction of building and its use was changed and recorded as 'naveen parti'. There is no restriction for exchange of the land of 'naveen parti'. The orders passed by the courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Khacheru Vs. There is no restriction for exchange of the land of 'naveen parti'. The orders passed by the courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Khacheru Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 52 in which it has been held the land earmarked for public purpose under Section 29-C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 can be exchanged under Section 161 of the Act. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is true that in Board of Revenue U.P., proceeded on incorrect premises that Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 30.03.2012 rejected resolution for exchange. By order dated 30.03.2012, Sub-Divisional Officer did not grant permission for construction of school building in plot 1995 as it was found to be low level land and used to be fill up with water during rainy reason and not suitable for construction of school building. Due to which Land Management Committee passed resolution for exchange of plot 1995 and 595 from the land of the petitioner, which was by the side of plot 1995 and 5 feet high from this plot. 8. So far as order of Sub-Divisional Officer is concerned, he has rejected the application on the ground that as the land in dispute was reserved for public purpose during consolidation as such it was a land falling within category of Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act imposes a restriction for acquisition of bhumidhari right over the land mentioned in it. If the land falling in the categories mentioned under Section 132 of the Act, is of ecological importance, then its use cannot be permitted to be changed. But the other land which was not of such importance then by permitting exchange only the land at particular place is shifted to other place and the restriction imposed under this section will apply to the exchanged plot. In this case, land of plot 1995 was the land of low level and was not found suitable for construction of school building. The exchange was in public interest as Gaon Sabha will get land suitable for construction of school building adjacent to plot 1995. This Court in Khacheru Vs. In this case, land of plot 1995 was the land of low level and was not found suitable for construction of school building. The exchange was in public interest as Gaon Sabha will get land suitable for construction of school building adjacent to plot 1995. This Court in Khacheru Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 52 , held the land earmarked for public purpose under Section 29-C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 can be exchanged by Gaon Sabha under Section 161 of the Act. Thus the order of Sub-Divisional Officer is contrary to the view taken by this Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Board of Revenue U.P. dated 19.09.2013 and Sub-Divisional Officer dated 11.06.2012 are set aside. The matter is remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the application for afresh in accordance with law.