JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Javed Habib, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. The writ petitions have been filed against the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 31.05.2006 and Additional Commissioner, dated 14.11.2008 by which it was found that the names of the petitioners were not recorded on the basis of valid patta granted by Land Management Committee in the revenue records and their names were directed to be deleted from the revenue records, in proceedings under Section 131-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The petitioners filed applications in July 2005, before Sub-Divisional Officer for recording their names as 'bhumidhar with transferable right' over the land allotted to them. It has been stated by the petitioners that Land Management Committee of village Kalchhina, pargana Jalalabad, district Ghaziabad held a meeting on 18.05.1984 after giving notice to the villagers for allotment of Goan Sabha land and passed resolution dated 16.06.1984 for allotment of various plots of Gaon Sabha to 153 landless persons, including the petitioners. The resolution dated 16.06.1984 was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 02.07.1984. The petitioners were allotted some area in plots 542, 1056, 1240, 1355, 1357, 2229, 2262 and 2407 of village Kalchhina, respectively. The names of the petitioners were mutated over the land allotted to them as 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' on the basis of patta granted to them. From the date of allotments, they were continuously in cultivatory possession of the land allotted to them. On coming into force of Section 131-B of the Act, on 14.01.1995, the petitioners acquired 'bhumidhar with transferable right'. On the applications of the petitioners, Tahsildar submitted report dated 23.09.2005 showing that 10 years have been completed after allotment of the land to the petitioners as such he recommended for granting required declaration. 4. Gaon Sabha through District Government Counsel (Revenue) filed objections in the applications of the petitioners. Sub-Divisional Officer, then constituted a team of Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector of the area and directed them to examine the record relating to allotment of the land and submit a fresh report. 4. Gaon Sabha through District Government Counsel (Revenue) filed objections in the applications of the petitioners. Sub-Divisional Officer, then constituted a team of Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector of the area and directed them to examine the record relating to allotment of the land and submit a fresh report. The team of Tahsildar, then examined the record relating to the allotment of the land as available in tahsil and submitted fresh report dated 11.05.2006, stating therein that in the resolution dated 16.06.1984, a list of 140, eligible persons were mentioned but there in no separate ZA Form-57-Kha of the eligible persons. ZA Forms-58-Ka, relating to the patta granted to eligible persons, available in the record do not contain the signatures of Lekhpal, Pradhan or any other competent authority. Total 146 pattas were granted. On the first page of the record relating to allotment of the land, "approved as proposed" has been written on which signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad was made on 02.07.1984, which appears to be suspicious. Along with the report dated 11.05.2006, the record relating to the allotment was also submitted to Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter the matter was heard by Sub-Divisional Officer, who by order dated 31.05.2006, held that after examining the original record relating to the allotment of the land, the report of the team submitted dated 11.05.2006 appears to be correct and allotments of the land is suspicious and based on fabricated approval. On these findings, the applications of the petitioners for declaring them as 'bhumidhar with transferable right' were rejected and their names were directed to be deleted from the land in dispute. The petitioners filed revisions against the aforesaid orders, which were consolidated and heard together. Additional Commissioner, by orders dated 14.11.2008, dismissed the revisions. Hence these writ petitions have been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proposal of Land Management Committee for allotment of the land to the petitioners dated 16.06.1984 was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 02.07.1984. Thereafter, pattas were granted to the petitioners and their names were recorded as 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' in the revenue records. Under Section 198 (6) (b) of the Act, limitation of five years has been provided for initiation of proceeding for cancellation of the patta by the Collector. No proceedings for cancellation of the pattas were initiated by the Collector within the prescribed period. Under Section 198 (6) (b) of the Act, limitation of five years has been provided for initiation of proceeding for cancellation of the patta by the Collector. No proceedings for cancellation of the pattas were initiated by the Collector within the prescribed period. The petitioners were continuously in cultivatory possession of the land allotted to them from the date of allotments. On coming into force of Section 131-B of the Act, on 14.01.1995, the petitioners have become 'bhumidhar with transferable right'. The orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioners were challenged by different allottees in Writ-C No. 3029 of 2009, Brij Pal and others Vs. Additional Commissioner and others, which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 13.05.2011, Writ-C No. 9837 of 2009 Inam and others Vs. Additional Commissioner and others, which was allowed on 01.11.2012 and Writ-C No. 58188 of 2012, Asghar and others Vs. Additional Commissioner and others, which was allowed on 02.09.2014. The common/similar orders have been set aside as such these writ petitions are also liable to be allowed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the judgments passed in the aforementioned writ petitions, it has been held that proceeding for cancellation of patta is provided under Section 198 (4) of the Act, before the Collector. Section 198 (5) provides for issue/serve a show cause notice to the allottee before passing any order in the proceedings for cancellation of patta and Section 198 (6) (b) prescribes five years period of limitation for issuing show cause notice. In this case, pattas were granted in the year 1984 and no proceedings for cancellation of patta has been initiated by the Collector under Section 198 (4) of the Act, within time. Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to cancel the pattas. The impugned orders were passed by Sub-Divisional Officer without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to constitute a committee for examination of the record and submit report and no reliance could be placed upon the report of the committee. 7. I respectfully do not agree with the aforementioned judgments. The impugned orders were passed by Sub-Divisional Officer without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to constitute a committee for examination of the record and submit report and no reliance could be placed upon the report of the committee. 7. I respectfully do not agree with the aforementioned judgments. Reasons for disagreement are as follows: - a. So far as the arguments that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing is concern, in these cases, the petitioners themselves filed applications for declaring them 'bhumidhar with transferable right' of the land allotted to them. Report of the committee was obtained on the own applications of the petitioners. Impugned order was passed on the applications of the petitioners. As such the allegations that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing are incorrect. b. Land Management Committee is authorized to admit any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable right with the previous approval of Assistant Collector in-charge of Sub-Division, under Section 195 of the Act. The procedures for allotment of the land by Land Management Committee are provided under Rules 173 to 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. Relevant provisions are quoted below: - "Section 195. Admission to land.--The Land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of sub-division shall have the right to admit any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable right to any land (other than land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132) where-- (a) the land is vacant land, (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or (c) the land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act." Rule-173: - Sections 195, 197 and 198 : Admission to land. - Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made. 1. Grant of lease - Provisions not followed - In respect of resolution of Gaon Panchayat only 83 pattas were granted, complaints were made and inquiry conducted. 1. Grant of lease - Provisions not followed - In respect of resolution of Gaon Panchayat only 83 pattas were granted, complaints were made and inquiry conducted. It was found that pattas were granted on back date and in an irregular manner. Rule 173 of Rules was not followed. The Parganadhikari found that 25 pattas were granted against the rules to the persons who were not eligible. Hence, pattas were cancelled. 2. Non-following of Rules - Effect of - As per findings recorded by Additional Collector, the provisions of Rules 173 and 174 of the Rules, framed under the Act, were not followed, neither there was any beat announcement nor list of landless persons was prepared nor provisions under Rules 174, 175, 176 were followed, hence, such allotment was wholly illegal. Rule-174: - On the said date, a meeting of the committee shall be held to select persons for admission to land as sirdar or asami as the case may be. A list of all the persons who are present and who express their desire to be admitted to the land shall be prepared in Z. A. Form 57-A. The list shall be drawn up separately in respect of the land to be settled to a sirdar and land to be settled to an asami. The names of the persons shall be arranged in the list in the order of preference laid down in Section 198. 174-A. [***] 174-AA. [***] 174-B. [***] Rule-175: - If the number of applicants does not exceed the number of intended to be settled on the land in respect of which announcement has been made under Rule 173, the Committee shall examine the eligibility of the person included in the list in Z.A. Form 57-A and take a decision regarding the plots of land to be settled with each such person. The Committee shall in the same meeting announce the names of the persons selected for settlement of land and also the revenue or rent to be fixed for the land proposed to be settled. The Committee shall in the same meeting announce the names of the persons selected for settlement of land and also the revenue or rent to be fixed for the land proposed to be settled. If the number of applicants belonging to the categories mentioned in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 198 is more than the number with whom land is intended to be settled, the list of applicants shall be placed before a meeting of the residents of the village called by the Land Management Committee and such of the applicants shall be selected for allotment as are considered to be the most suitable on merits on the basis of a consensus be arrived at the meeting so convened. If such a consensus cannot be arrived at, the Land Management Committee shall draw lots to determine the person or persons with whom the land should be settled.] [176. - (1) After selecting the person or persons for admission to the land in accordance with Rule 175, the Committee shall prepare - (a) a list of persons so selected in Z.A. Form 57-B, (b) a certificate of admission to land in Z.A. Form 58, and (c) a counterpart in Z.A. Form 58-A. (2) The documents referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be duly signed by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee but the document referred to in clause (c) shall be signed by the person so selected for admission of land. (3) The document referred to in sub-rule (1) shall then be forwarded to the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division along with - (a) a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee in which the decision to settle land was taken ; and (b) a certificate from the Lekhpal concerned to the effect that the particulars of the land mentioned in the list are correct, and that the admission of the land is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. (4) The Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division shall, on receipt of the documents, referred to in sub-rule (3) scrutinize the decision taken by the Committee and if he is satisfied that the decision of the Committee is in accordance with the Act and the rules made thereunder, he shall record his approval on the list in Z.A. Form 57-B and return the papers to the Land Management Committee wihtin a week of its receipt from the Chairman with the direction that the possession may be delivered to the lessees and the report of the mutation be submitted to the Supervisor Kannongo by the lekhpal immediately after delivery of possession. (5) If the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub Division finds that the whole or part of the decision taken by the Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, he shall record his disapproval on the list in Z.A. Form 57-B and return the papers to the Chairman.] [176-A. (1) On receipt of the list in Z.A. Form 57-B with the order of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee shall call the person whose selection for allotment of land has been approved by the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division and shall furnish to him a certificate in Z.A. Form 58 and shall get a counterpart in Z.A. Form 58-A executed by him. If the land sought to be allotted is a land referred to in Section 132, the person concerned shall be furnished with a certificate in Z.A. Form 59 and shall be asked to execute a counterpart in Z.A. Form 59-D : Provided that no lease shall be made to an asami for a period exceeding five years. (2) It shall be lawful for the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division to determine at any time the lease in favour of an asami and upon such determination, the asami shall not be entitled to any compensation. (3) Every order of determination of lease under sub-rule (2) shall be effective from the commencement of the agricultural year following the date of the order. (3) Every order of determination of lease under sub-rule (2) shall be effective from the commencement of the agricultural year following the date of the order. (4) Where the decision of the Land Management Committee regarding admission to any land is not approved by the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division, steps will be taken afresh for settlement of such land in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) read with Rules 173 to 176-A. All contracts relating to a lease, license or allotment of land shall be executed in duplicate. One copy of the contract shall be given to the lessee, licencee or allottee and the other copy shall be retained by the Land Management Committee for record.] c. Thus under Rule 176 (2) ZA Form-57 Kha and ZA Form-58 are required to be signed by Chairman, Land Management Committee. In this case, Sub-Divisional Officer, after examining the records relating to allotment of the land to the petitioners, categorically held that there in no separate ZA Form-57-Kha of the eligible persons. ZA Forms-58-Ka, relating to the patta granted to eligible persons, available in the record do not contain the signatures of Lekhpal, Pradhan or any other competent authority. Thus it was found that entire record was suspicious and fabricated. There was no resolution of Land Management Committee. The papers on the basis of which it is alleged that pattas were granted to the petitioners are fabricated papers. Gaon Sabha was contesting the matter. d. A patta of the land belonging to the Goan Sabha has to be granted according the procedure prescribed under the law. Fabricated record cannot be regarded as a valid proceeding for grant of patta nor any right can be conferred on its basis. Section 198 (4) provides for cancellation of irregular allotment. Fabricated record are no allotment and can be treated as void documents. Supreme Court in Ajudh Raj v. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600 , held that if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eye of law and it is not necessary to set it aside. In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552 , held that the expression "void" has several facets. In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552 , held that the expression "void" has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. In U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 2000 SC 878 , held that if Goan Sabha had no authority to grant lease then such a lease was a void document from the inception and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not affected. It can ignore it. e. Sub-Divisional Officer is competent authority under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 to make correction in the Revenue Records. Under the Act also he is competent authority to grant declaration of the right. In this case, Sub-Divisional Officer found that there was no valid allotments in favour of the petitioners as such they had no right over the land in dispute. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error. Public property cannot be permitted to be grabbed by making forgery in the record. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the record of these writ petitions be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for nominating the Division Bench for hearing /deciding the writ petitions.