Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 532 (ALL)

LAL BAHADUR v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-03-23

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri R.B. Yadav for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 6. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and has been filed challenging the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the Collector and the order dated 18.9.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. The Collector by his order has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, which order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in revision, hence this writ petition. 4. It appears that a resolution was passed on 22.7.2004 for allotment in favour of the petitioners, which was approved by the S.D.M. on 30.7.2014. The allotment was of land situated in Village Tejsinghpur, Pargana and Tehsil Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar. An application for cancellation of this lease was filed by respondents 5 to 10 in the writ petition. This application was filed on the ground that the allotments have been made without following the procedure prescribed and was in favour of persons, who were not eligible for allotment in their favour. The entire proceedings were done surreptitiously and the allotment was in favour of village strongman ‘The land allotted was not vacated on the spot and trees and houses existed thereon and it was in the shape of Abadi’ ‘There was total non compliance of Rules 173 to 178 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. It was lastly alleged that the concerned Lekhpal was one Dinesh Lal, but the report obtained prior to the allotment was by one Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma, who was not the concerned Lekhpal, which also vitiated the proceedings for allotment. 5. At the instance of the contesting respondents, an enquiry report was called for, which was duly submitted and relying upon the same and after hearing the allottees, the Collector by the order dated 1.10.2014, cancelled the allotment. 6. The order of cancellation records that the allottees had tried to usurp the pasture land and land recorded as pond. It was also recorded that the allottees were owners of agricultural land, possessed Pakka houses and tractors as also pump set and, therefore, were not eligible persons. 6. The order of cancellation records that the allottees had tried to usurp the pasture land and land recorded as pond. It was also recorded that the allottees were owners of agricultural land, possessed Pakka houses and tractors as also pump set and, therefore, were not eligible persons. It was also recorded that Lal Bahadur Bind and his parents had been allotted agricultural lease of Plot Nos. 177 and 93, which was, in fact, land reserved for Abadi and, therefore, the same could not have been the subject-matter of allotment. The proceedings had been got completed after obtaining report of a Lekhpal, who was not the Lekhpal of the area, wherein the allotted land was situated and the concerned Lekhpal of the area namely, Dinesh Lal, had no notice or information of the proceedings. The agenda and munadi was of the same date. It was lastly recorded that the preparation of the eligibility list was vitiated and illegal, and the entire proceedings were an attempt to usurp Gaon Sabha property. 7. While cancelling the allotment, the Collector also directed that a First Information Report be lodged against the concerned officials as also the beneficiaries, who had colluded in the said illegal allotment. 8. The Additional Collector while affirming this order has reiterated the findings returned by the Collector. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment had been made on a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha Kaida. This Gram Sabha consists of several villages including the village in question, namely, Tejsinghpur. The Lekhpal, namely, Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma, on whose report, the allotment proceedings had been drawn, was a Lekhpal of area falling within the jurisdiction of Gram Sabha Kaida and, therefore, he was competent to have made the report and the view to the contrary taken by the Courts below is therefore unsustainable. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, more specifically sub-section 2 of Section 28 A, in support of his contention. The provision relied upon reads as follows: “The Pradhan shall be the Chairperson of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and the Lekhpal of the area comprised in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat shall be its Secretary” 10. The provision relied upon reads as follows: “The Pradhan shall be the Chairperson of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and the Lekhpal of the area comprised in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat shall be its Secretary” 10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Gram Panchayat is also the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, the Pradhan of the Gram Sabha is the Chairperson of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and the Lekhpal of the area comprised in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat is the Secretary of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. 11. Since Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma was Lekhpal of an area comprised in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, he was its Secretary and, therefore, competent to have made the report, on the basis of which, the allotment was made. 12. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand have refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. They have submitted that for the purposes of allotment of land situated in village Tejsinghpur, the Lekhpal of the said village would be the Secretary of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma was not the Lekhpal, within whose territorial jurisdiction, the land allotted was situated. He could have made a report only as regards the areas, which came within his territorial jurisdiction. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. Section 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides for establishment of a Gram Sabha by means of a notification issued by the State Government in the official gazette and it may consist of a village or group of villages. The proviso to this section provides that where a Gaon Sabha is established for a group of villages, the name of the village having the largest population, shall be specified as the name of the Gram Sabha. 15. A Gram Panchayat as is defined in Section 2 (h) of the Panchayat Raj Act means the Gram Panchayat constituted under Section 12 of the Act which is extracted below : “Section 12. Gram panchayat.—(1) (a) There shall be [constituted] for every Panchayat area, a Gram Panchayat bearing the name of the Panchayat area. (b) Every Gram Panchayat shall be a body corporate. Gram panchayat.—(1) (a) There shall be [constituted] for every Panchayat area, a Gram Panchayat bearing the name of the Panchayat area. (b) Every Gram Panchayat shall be a body corporate. (c) A Gram Panchayat shall consist of a Pradhan and, in the case of a Panchayat area having a population of- (I) [upto one thousand] nine members; (II) more than one thousand but not more than two thousand, eleven members; (III) more than two thousand but not more than three thousand, thirteen members, or (IV) more than three thousand, fifteen members............. 16. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it clearly emerges that the Gram Panchayat is also the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. The functions of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti are enumerated in Section 28-B. sub-section (h) of Section 28-B provides that the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is authorized to perform functions assigned to it under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or any other enactment. 17. sub-section 2 of Section 28-B provides that the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall function subject to the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 18. The procedure for admitting persons to land has been provided under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Rules. 19. Para 36-A of the U.P. Land Record Manual provides that a Lekhpal shall work as Secretary of the Land Management Committee (Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti) and it reads as follows : “36-A. Lekhpal to work as Secretary, Land Management Committee.—The Lekhpal shall work as the Secretary of the Land Management Committees of his halka and shall work under the direction of the chairman in all matters relating to such committees. He shall attend all the meetings of committees and give any information in respect of the entries in the land records asked for by them and also get the leases granted by the committee in respect of admissions to land duly executed and registered or attested within the prescribed period. The Lekhapal shall also be responsible for the proper maintenance of the accounts and registers of the committees including register of case showing entries about all cases filed by or against the [Gram Sabha] and thereof.” 20. The Lekhapal shall also be responsible for the proper maintenance of the accounts and registers of the committees including register of case showing entries about all cases filed by or against the [Gram Sabha] and thereof.” 20. This provision makes it crystal clear that a Lekhpal is the Secretary of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) of his ‘Halka’, meaning thereby that each Lekhpal functions as the Secretary of the Land Management Committee of the area, which falls within his ‘Halka’. 21. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the allotment was of land of village Tejsinghpur, which fell within the ‘Halka’ of Dinesh Lal. This village was not comprised in the ‘Halka’ of Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma and, therefore, the allotments made on the basis of his report were clearly vitiated as he exercised no jurisdiction over the land of village Tejsinghpur. 22. It must therefore necessarily be held on a conjoint reading of all the provisions noticed above, that the constitution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Committee insofar as its Secretary is concerned, shall vary depending upon the area with which the said Samiti is dealing with and the Lekhpal of such area or ‘halka’ would be the Secretary of the Land Management Committee as regards affairs pertaining to that ‘Halka’. 23. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 24. Insofar as the other findings returned in the impugned orders are concerned, they are pure findings of fact, which are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The writ petition therefore is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. ——————