Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2898 (ALL)

Khurshid v. Additional Commissioner Admin

2015-09-15

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents; Sri Rajesh Yadav, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5 (Land Management Committee); Sri VP Rai for respondent nos. 11 and 12, and Sri MK Mishra on behalf of respondent no. 10. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner also, in pursuance of the order dated 18.4.2012 in CM Writ Petition No. 8050 of 1999, passed by this Hon'ble Court, and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, and further be please to direct the respondent-authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute without following the procedure prescribed under the law. 3. The relevant facts of the case, briefly stated, are that certain allotment was made in pursuance of a resolution dated 23.2.1979 of the Land Management Committee (LMC) in favour of 192 persons. This resolution is stated to have been approved by the SDO, Kairana on 27.2.1979. 4. It has been submitted that thereafter the consolidation operation in the village came to an end and the petitioners' predecessors were allotted chaks in lieu of the land allotted to them. 5. Subsequently the proceedings under section 198(4) of the UP ZA & LR Act (the Act) were initiated. The Addl. Collector (Finance and Revenue), Muzaffar Nagar, by his order dated 5.8.1981 cancelled the allotment. 6. Against the said order of the Addl. Collector (Finance and Revenue), Muzaffar Nagar, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 1 to 8 and petitioner 9 himself, along with other allottees, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. This revision was dismissed on 3.3.1992. The order of the Addl. Commissioner dated 3.3.1992 was challenged before the Board of Revenue by only some of the aggrieved persons. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.1988 allowed the revision, and remanded the matter back to the Addl. Collector to decide the matter afresh only in so far as the allotment in favour of the revisionists was concerned. 7. Commissioner dated 3.3.1992 was challenged before the Board of Revenue by only some of the aggrieved persons. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.1988 allowed the revision, and remanded the matter back to the Addl. Collector to decide the matter afresh only in so far as the allotment in favour of the revisionists was concerned. 7. Writ Petition No. 2358 of 1989 was filed before this Court claiming that the relief, which had been granted to the revisionists, be also extended to the writ petitioners therein, who were arrayed as respondents in the revision before the Board of Revenue. 8. This Court by order dated 5.7.1993 allowed the writ petition on the the reasoning that the allotment had been canceled in violation of the principles of natural justice. This violation was as regards all the allottees and the persons who had not filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, were also entitled to the benefit of the order. 9. In pursuance of the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue and in consonance with the directions of the writ court, as contained in the order dated 5.7.1993, an order was passed cancelling the allotments in so far as 116 out of 192 original allottees are concerned.As regards the remaining allottees, the order of cancellation was maintained. 10. Against this order dated 5.7.1993, a revision was filed before the Commissioner by the aggrieved persons, which was allowed on 22.12.1998, and the matter was remanded back. 11. Challenging the order of remand, another writ petition, being WP No. No. 8050 of 199, was filed by 62 persons. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2012 with the direction that the Collector, to whom the matter had been remanded by the Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 22.12.1998, may determine as to whether the allottees were eligible for allotment of the land; and, whether the allotments had been made following the procedure prescribed under the Rules. 12. It is stated that the matter is still under consideration before the Addl. Collector (Finance and Revenue), Muzaffar Nagar. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that this writ petition, praying for the relief noticed above, has been filed. 13. 12. It is stated that the matter is still under consideration before the Addl. Collector (Finance and Revenue), Muzaffar Nagar. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that this writ petition, praying for the relief noticed above, has been filed. 13. In this connection it would be relevant to note that the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest have never challenged the orders passed against them, namely the order the order dated 3.3.1982, whereby their revision had been dismissed by the Commissioner. 14. It is reiterated that the petitioners herein were not the revisionists nor respondents in the revision before the Board of Revenue. They did not even file a writ petition as was done by others, seeking the benefit of the order of remand passed by the the Board of Revenue, which specifically refused the benefit to all those who were not revisionists before the Board of Revenue. 15. It is further borne out from the averments in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that in pursuance of the order of remand dated 21.12.1988, passed by the Board of Revenue, and the order of the writ court dated 5.7.1993 passed in WP No. 2358 of 1989, only 116, out of the original 192 allottees, were the beneficiaries. It is not the petitioners' case that they were among these 116 persons. They are, therefore, the remaining 76 allottees or their successors, who never challenged the orders passed against them. 16. Even otherwise, the position, as it existed when the writ court passed orders on 5.7.1983, is entirely different to the position as it exists today. 17. Subsequent to the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 21.2.1988 and the writ court dated 5.7.1993, noticed above, the matter has again been decided by the Addl. Collector (Finance and Revenue). Against that order, a revision filed, has been allowed and remanded. Consequent to this order of remand, another order has been passed by the writ court on 28.2.2012 directing that the matter to be decided in pursuance of the directions contained therein. 18. The petitioners have woken up several years after the order was passed by the writ court on 28.4.2012. Consequent to this order of remand, another order has been passed by the writ court on 28.2.2012 directing that the matter to be decided in pursuance of the directions contained therein. 18. The petitioners have woken up several years after the order was passed by the writ court on 28.4.2012. They have approached the Court more than 13 years after the orders had been passed against them, and they seek to derive the benefits of orders passed in favour of other allottees, who were vigilant as regards their rights and had consistently pursued the legal remedies available to them. 19. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners are only interested in availing the fruits of the labours of others, without having resorted to the legal remedies available to them, in law. They have, therefore, acquiesced to the orders passed against them and merely because the dispute has not been resolved finally despite a period of almost 30 years having elapsed, the same, in my considered opinion, cannot be a ground for permitting them to re-enter the proceedings at this highly belated stage. 20. There is yet another aspect of the matter on account of which the relief claimed is not liable to be granted to the petitioners. It is admitted on record, and has been reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for various respondents, that the land, which was the subject matter of the initial allotment, the orders of cancellation whereof had not been challenged by the respective allottees, which includes the petitioners, was subsequently allotted in favour of respondents 7 to 12. These subsequent allottees claim to be in possession over the land allotted to them. It is further their claim that the allotment in their favour has not been challenged at any point of time. 21. It, therefore, emerges that on account of inaction and acquiescence on the part of the petitioners, fresh rights in the land, originally allotted to them, have been granted and have accrued in favour of respondents 7 to 12. 22. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would not be proper for this Court to grant the relief claimed in the writ petition as it would necessarily entail interference in the rights granted to the aforesaid respondents 7 to 12, despite the acquiescence and inaction on the part of the petitioners, in not resorting to the legal remedies available to them. 23. 23. Accordingly, and for the reasons give above, I find no justification to grant the relief prayed for to the petitioners who have slept over their legal rights for more than 3 decades, and therefore cannot be permitted to re-agitate their claim at a highly belated stage. 24. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.