Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 963 (ALL)

Babu Lal v. Additional Commissioner Lko.

2015-04-23

ANIL KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri R. J. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. The controversy involved in the present case relates to land recorded as Gata Nos.187 and 188 situated in Village-Deepak Khera, Tehsil and District-Unnao. Initially, in respect of the said land, a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z. A. & L. R. Act has been filed in which an order dated 30.06.1978 has been passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Unnao, challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal (Appeal No.464/77-78 under Section 331 of U.P. C. H. Act inter alia praying therein that an order dated 30.06.1978 may be set aside and the land may be recorded as Sirdhari Patta in his favour in the revenue record in stead of Asammi Patta. 3. By order dated 11.04.1979, the appellate authority has allowed the appeal and directed that the land which belongs to Gaon Sabha shall be recorded as Sirdhari Patta in stead of Asammi Patta. The reasoning given by the appellate authority while passing the order dated 11.04.1979 that as the land in question has not been recorded as "Talab" or "Charagah" in the revenue record, so Asammi Patta has wrongly been granted. 4. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for implementation of the order dated 11.04.1979 in the revenue record and Assistant Record Officer, Unnao/Prescribed Authority has ordered on 21.01.2006 for Amaldaramad in favour of the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, an application for restoration of the order dated 21.01.2006 was moved by the contesting respondents and by order dated 10.01.2007, Assistant Record Officer, Unnao recalled the order dated 21.01.2006. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2007, petitioner filed an appeal No.2/07 under Section 210 of U.P. L.R. Act, dismissed by order dated 11.06.2007 passed by opposite party no.2Collector/Record Officer, Unnao, challenged by filing revision (Revision No.638/07-08), dismissed by order dated 17.04.2008 passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that once the order dated 11.04.1979 passed by the appellate authority has already been implemented in the revenue record by order dated 21.01.2006. So, the impugned order, under challenged in the present writ petition is void ab initio and unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone throug the records. 9. So, the impugned order, under challenged in the present writ petition is void ab initio and unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone throug the records. 9. First and foremost question to be decided in the present case that whether the petitioner has got any right to get the Assami Patta granted in his favour in respect of the land in dispute i.e. Gata Nos.187 and 188, converted into Sirdhari Patta. 10. It is settled position of law that Rule 176-A of the Rules framed under the Act, (hereinafter referred to the as the 'Rules') as it stands today w.e.f. 1.11.1975, provides that no Assami lease shall be made for a period exceeding five years. Therefore, in case of period of lease not being specified, it shall be treated as one on year to year basis with the maximum period of five years. Thus, the lease granted to the petitioner by way of Assami Patta automatically after expiry of the period as mentioned therein or utmost after five years from the date of initial grant. 11. In this regard, it has been held by this Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. Collector 2004 (97) RD 360 that where there is no material on record to establish the period of Assami lease it shall be assumed to be a lease from year to year only. This decision has been followed with approval by this Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2011(5) AWC 5026 equivalent to 2011 (7) ADJ 748 . 12. In Kehri Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Mathura 2007 (102) RD 872 it has been provided that the holder of Assami lease is liable to eviction in a summary manner after expiry of period of lease by expunging the name from the revenue records. 13. Further, in the case of Chhotti Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (109) RD 240 it has been held that Assami lease holder has no right to continue in possession on the expiry of lease and his name is liable to be expunged from revenue records. No opportunity of hearing is necessary when nothing plausible has been stated about the defence which may also change the outcome. 14. No opportunity of hearing is necessary when nothing plausible has been stated about the defence which may also change the outcome. 14. Thus, in the instant case also the Assami lease of the petitioner stands determined by the Statute itself i.e. by virtue of Rule 176-A of the Rules on the expiry of five years from the date of initial grant. So, the same stands determined with efflux of time, as such, the petitioner has got no right to convert the same as Shridhar Land. Thus, very basis of the foundation, the order dated 17.04.2008 is void ab initio and without jurisdiction and from the said fact, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit in his favour. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, under challenge, in the present writ petition. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.