Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2886 (ALL)

Saroj v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-12-08

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioners who are seven in number are seeking quashing of the orders dated 6.1.2017 and 13.11.2017 arising out of proceedings under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950). 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners were allotted plots no. 111 and 239 of Village Kishankheri, P.O. Rampur Maniharan Saharanpur areas 3 Bighas (Kachcha), 6 Bigha, 6 Bigha, 3 Bigha, 3 Bigha, 3 Bigha, 3 Bigha and 3 Bigha in village Kishankheri and Navrangpur respectively since 1987 under a scheme of Sterilization. They are stated to be poor persons of the village and are landless as stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It is also stated that they have been in possession over the land in question for the last 30 years. From the reading of the impugned order it is noticed that proceedings under section 176 of the Act, 1950 were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the land which was allotted to them was public utility land recorded in the revenue record as pasture land, Khalihan and Khenti, which is a public utility land under section 132 of the Act, 1950 and, therefore, no Patta could have been granted of these lands. A report was called from the Tehsildar who has also submitted his report to the effect that the plots in question were public utility land recorded as such under section 132 of the Act, 1950. Notices of the proceedings were duly issued to the petitioners and the impugned order discloses that they have also filed their objections thereto stating that the land over which they are in possession was duly allotted to them as they belonged to the scheduled caste community and were landless persons. The impugned order also shows that the revenue records were examined by the S.D.M. concerned in which the land is shown to be recorded as Pasture land, Khalihan and Khanti, which is public utility land under section 132 of the Act, 1950. It is thereafter that the impugned order dated 6.1.2017 was passed. The impugned order also shows that the revenue records were examined by the S.D.M. concerned in which the land is shown to be recorded as Pasture land, Khalihan and Khanti, which is public utility land under section 132 of the Act, 1950. It is thereafter that the impugned order dated 6.1.2017 was passed. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed a recall application which has been rejected by the other impugned order dated 13.11.2017 on the ground that the petitioners had been given adequate opportunity to file whatever evidence they wanted in their favour but nothing was filed by them and therefore the impugned order cannot be said to be an ex-parte order. 4. From the documents on record it is noticed that the petitioners had filed their objections which means that they had participated in the proceedings but if they do not appear on the date fixed for hearing of the case the order passed cannot be said to be an ex-parte order. The impugned order further discloses that the revenue records were duly examined by the S.D.M. Rampur who has held that in the revenue records the plots in question have been recorded as Pasture land, Khalihan (land for storing grains) and Khanti (public utility land) and such land being public utility land under section 132 of the Act, 1950 could not have been allotted at all. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the land had been allotted to the petitioners and by virtue of passage of time they had acquired Bhumidhari rights and had become Bhumidhar with non transferable right belonging to the category III as Asami. Reference has been made to the documents filed at page 40 of the writ petition. This document no doubt shows that the persons have been recorded in category III as Assami but this document does not disclose the nature of the land as being public utility land or Gaon Sabha land. 6. In not a single paragraph of the writ petition is there any pleading that the land which was allotted to the petitioners belonged to the Gaon Sabha which could have been allotted to them. 6. In not a single paragraph of the writ petition is there any pleading that the land which was allotted to the petitioners belonged to the Gaon Sabha which could have been allotted to them. All that has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is that assuming the status of Asami under section 132 of the Act, 1950 the nature of the land in dispute is sought to be changed and vested in the Gaon Sabha by rejecting the Pattas of the petitioners. It is also alleged that the land was allotted to the petitioners under a Scheme of Male Sterilization in 1987. There is not a single document on record to show that any such Scheme was launched or introduced by the Government at any point of time where public utility land falling under section 132 of the Act, 1950 could be allotted to the persons covered by the Scheme of Sterilization. The document filed at page 54 of the writ petition clearly shows one of the plots to be Pasture land. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then sought to place reliance upon a judgment dated 2.5.2008 of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P. No. 19865 of 2008 (Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. and others). 8. In my opinion the said judgment has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case as in that case the proceedings were initiated without even issuing notices to the petitioners therein and, therefore, the Court had set aside the impugned orders on the ground that the same were without notice or opportunity to the petitioners therein. 9. For reasons aforesaid I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.