Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2726 (ALL)

HARI SHANKAR KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-11-24

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. The petitioners were granted pattas on 11.6.1996 and they were also approved by the Collector on 16.6.1996. However, on the complaint of some political leaders, the collector issued notices to the petitioners and initiated proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Notices were issued on 18.3.1997. Replies were submitted by the petitioners on 21.6.1999. A report was called for by the Assistant Collector to whom the Collector had transferred the case, which was submitted by the Naib-tehsildar. Thereafter, the Additional Collector on 27.5.2002 cancelled the patta of the petitioners, who filed a revision which was also dismissed on 31.8.2006. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the political leaders who had made the complaints against the pattas of the petitioners were not "aggrieved persons" under the Act. He further submitted that the Tehsildar was not entitled to give a report and the Collector himself ought to have enquired into the matter. In the end the petitioners submitted that the impugned order which was passed by the Additional Collector and not by the Collector could not have been passed by the Additional Collector as the Collector alone was required to pass the order. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned orders and submitted that it mattered little that who made the complaint. He also submitted that the Tehsildar was definitely entitled to submit the report as was asked for by the Assistant Collector. Furthermore, he submits that the Additional Collector could also cancel the patta and therefore he cancelled them. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Act is a purposive legislation which has been enacted for the benefit the tiller. The object of the Act, is that land should go to the tiller. Under Section 198(4) of the Act, a person who is aggrieved by the patta of a pattedar alone can file a complaint. Only if a person was already having possession of a particular land and was earlier tilling by the same could be termed as a person who was aggrieved. The legislatures would never have dreamt that the provisions of Section 198(4) of the Act would be used as a tool by political leaders to settle scores. Only if a person was already having possession of a particular land and was earlier tilling by the same could be termed as a person who was aggrieved. The legislatures would never have dreamt that the provisions of Section 198(4) of the Act would be used as a tool by political leaders to settle scores. Section 198(4) of the Act is being reproduced here as under:- "Section 198 (4):- The [Collector] may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any." If the Section is perused, it becomes clear that only a person who is aggrieved can be allowed to challenge the patta. Who is a person aggrieved was a subject matter of judicial interpretation in Adi Pheroz shah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, reported in AIR 1971 SC 385 . The Hon'ble Apex Court had said:- "From these cases it is apparent that any person who feels disappointed with the result of the case is not a person aggrieved. He must be disappointed of a benefit which he would have received if the order had gone the other way. The order must cause him a legal grievance by wrongfully depriving him of something." From the above, it is clear that a person can be said to be aggrieved only when his rights are affected because of the existence of the patta, meaning thereby that if the patta goes then he would either continue to remain in possession or come into possession and thereafter till the land. The expression " person aggrieved" was also explained in 2005 (98) RD 106 : Pyare Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah and Ors., wherein this Court had held that only if a person who was aggrieved had sought to get a patta cancelled would the Collector initiate proceedings. In the instant case, the complainants were not persons aggrieved and, therefore, the very fact that the complaint was not filed by a person who was eligible to file the complaint would make the impugned orders unsustainable in law. After it has been found that the complaint itself was not maintainable nothing further ought to be looked into. In the instant case, the complainants were not persons aggrieved and, therefore, the very fact that the complaint was not filed by a person who was eligible to file the complaint would make the impugned orders unsustainable in law. After it has been found that the complaint itself was not maintainable nothing further ought to be looked into. However, since the Collector/Assistant Collector himself was required to make the enquiry and he did not make the enquiry himself, I also hold that orders were bad on account of the fact that the Collector/Assistant Collector himself did not make the enquiry. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Collector should not have been assigned the work of looking into the complaint, however, holds no water as in 2008 (5) ADJ 331 : Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and Ors. a Full Bench of this Court has held that the where the Collector is to perform a certain duty, the Additional Collector can also perform it. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, and the order 27.5.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Jhansi are quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed.