Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3026 (ALL)

Parabdin v. Board of Revenue, U. P. At Lucknow

2016-09-02

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra for the petitioner , Standing Counsel for State of UP and Sri D.D. Chauhan for gram panchayat. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub Divisional Officer dated 30.12.2009 and dated 1.8.2015 and the order of Board of Revenue dated 4.7.2016. 4. Land Management Committee passed a resolution dated 3.10.1975 and 30.11.1975 for grant of patta to various eligible persons of the village. In pursuance thereof the petitioner was granted patta of plot no. 626 sa, area 12 biswa and plot no. 589 sa area 3 biswa conferring asami right to the petitioner. On the basis of patta, name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record as asami. On the complaint of Ram Sumer and others, the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 was started for cancellation of patta granted on the basis of resolution dated 3.10.1975 and 30.11.1975. The Additional Collector after hearing the parties by order dated 18.8.1980 held that plot nos. 526, 529, 534 and 558 were public utility land covered in the category under Section 132 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951. However, instead of cancelling the patta, he held that if patta has been granted to any other person on these plots conferring sirdari right then their patta will be treated as patta of asami right. 5. On the report of Tehsildar dated 30.12.2009, Sub Divisional officer exercising powers under Section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act 1901 directed for deleting the name of the petitioner from the land in dispute. The petitioner filed an application dated 23.2.2012 for recall of the aforesaid order. The Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 1.8.2015 rejected the recall application of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before Board of Revenue, UP which has been dismissed by order dated 4.7.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an asami under Section 198 (9) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951, therefore, without taking any proceeding for ejectment of the petitioner according to the provisions of UP Act No. 1 of 1951, his name could not be deleted from the revenue records. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an asami under Section 198 (9) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951, therefore, without taking any proceeding for ejectment of the petitioner according to the provisions of UP Act No. 1 of 1951, his name could not be deleted from the revenue records. The Sub Divisional Officer has deleted the name of the petitioner from revenue record without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. The petitioner is a lawful allottee as such provisions of Section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 is not attracted on him. The impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgement of this Court in Vakila v. State of UP, 2008 (2) AWC 1326 and Ram Dev v. State of UP, 2008 (105) RD 283 . 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the records. 8. A perusal of the patta as well as revenue record shows that the petitioner was not granted sirdari patta rather he was granted asami patta from the very beginning. Under the provisions of Rule 176 A of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952 patta for asami right could be granted for maximum period of five years. Admittedly, the patta was granted to the petitioner on 7.2.1976. Thus the period of patta has already come to an end and due efflux of time on the date of impugned order dated 30.12.2009. The petitioner left with no substantive right over the land in dispute and his name was rightly deleted from the revenue record. In any case in the absence of any right over the land in dispute this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot direct for restoring the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. 9. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that he has asami under Section 198 (9) of the Act is not accepted inasmuch as under Section 198 (9) of the Act the patta granted over the land falling within the category under Section 132 of the Act conferring sirdari right, was converted as asami patta. However in the present case the petitioner was granted patta conferring asami right from very beginning. The order of Additional Collector dated 18.8.1980 is applicable upon those persons who were granted patta of sirdari right over plot nos. However in the present case the petitioner was granted patta conferring asami right from very beginning. The order of Additional Collector dated 18.8.1980 is applicable upon those persons who were granted patta of sirdari right over plot nos. 526, 529 534 and 558 and not upon the petitioner. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has no application in this case. 10. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.