Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2522 (ALL)

Praveen Singh v. Board of Revenue Up At Allahabad

2015-08-20

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2015
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Notice on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. For the order proposed to be passed there is no need to issue notices to opposite party nos.3 to 7, hence notices to opposite party nos. 3 to 7, are hereby dispensed with. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.4.2015 passed by the opposite party no. 2 in the proceedings under Section 143, U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act as well as the order dated 1.7.2015 passed by the opposite party no. 1 in the revision preferred against the said order dated 13.4.2015. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner has constructed a house over the land measuring 0.051 hectare of Gata No. 262 in the year 1985. The said construction was done with the consent of recorded tenure holder as husband of the petitioner had paid Rs. 5,000/- in the year 1985 for permission to construct the house. On an application moved under Section 143,U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, for change of land uses of the land in question, the opposite party no.2 after obtaining report from the Tehsildar concerned has rejected the same holding that the petitioner cannot claim to be the tenure holder of the land in question, as such the claim of the petitioner has no merit hence rejected. The revision preferred against the said order has also been dismissed without properly considering the submissions made therein. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in order to maintain the application under Section 143, U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, it is not necessary to be a tenure holder. The Assistant Collector Incharge of Sub Division has the power even to take cognizance suo moto and pass order under Section 143, U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act, which clearly means that whether any application has been moved by any person or not, in case the agricultural land is not being used for agricultural purposes, land uses of said land can be changed in exercise of powers under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the records. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the records. 6. In order to settle the controversy, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Section 143, U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, which on reproduction read as under: "Use of holding for industrial or residential purposes- (1) Where a (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect. (1-A) Where a declaration under sub-section (1) has to be made in respect of a part of the holding, the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division may, in the manner prescribed, demarcate such part for the purposes of such declaration. (2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1), the provision of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to the (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. (3) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights has been granted, before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act 1978, any loan by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation or by any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, on the security of any land held by such Bhumidhar, the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to such Bhumidhar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject." 7. Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act clearly provides that where a Bhumidhar with transferable rights uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector-in-charge of sub-division may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry may pass an order for change of land uses. It clearly means that in case the holding or part of the holding (land) is being used for the purpose not connected with agriculture land use of said land can be changed in exercise of powers under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R.Act. Petitioner does not own holding or part of holding as in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has no right over the land in question as she is not a tenure holder of the land in question. Her husband has merely constructed the house on a part of the said land, as such I am of the view that provisions of Section 143, U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act would not be applicable in the case of petitioner. The petitioner has no right to move any application for change of land uses under Section 143, U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. 8. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.