Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 521 (UTT)

Ram Kishan v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-10-05

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed themselves to be an allottee of agricultural land by virtue of the resolution passed by the respondent No. 2. The said resolution of allotment of agricultural land as made on 25th September, 1993, was approved by the S.D.M on 3rd February, 1996. It seems that the a proceeding under Section 198 (4) was initiated by filing an application before the Collector, for the relief of cancellation of patta. The said proceeding was initiated at the behest of the private respondents to the present writ petition. 2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that though the inception of the proceedings under Section 198 (4) has taken before the Collector, but, at a later stage, “those proceedings were transferred by the Collector to the Court of Additional Collector”, who has passed the impugned order, whereby, the cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioners, was affirmed. The said order was put to challenge in a Revision, the Revisional Court, too, concurred with the findings of the Additional Collector and dismissed the same by the order dated 11th October, 2012, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The pleadings have been exchanged. Parties consented upon for arguments of writ petition finally. 4. Heard Mr. Parikshit Sani, Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Safdar, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 5. The sole ground which is being put to challenge and pressed by the petitioners for challenging the impugned order is that they contend that in view of the provisions contained under Section 198 (4), the Collector is an authority designated under the Act for the purposes of exercising powers for scrutinizing the veracity of a Patta granted for an agricultural purposes. For the said purpose, he places reliance on the provisions contained under Section 198 (4), which for the purposes of brevity, is quoted hereunder:- “[(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.” The term Collector has been defined under Z.A. & L.R. Act in its Sub-section (4) of Section 3 reads as under : “(4) “Collector” means an officer appointed as Collector under the provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector of First Class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any function of a Collector under this Act. It necessarily follows that power of allotment of land under the Act.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in accordance with definition clause of Collector as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the Collector means an officer appointed as a Collector under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector, 1st Class empowered by the State Government by a notification and gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector under this Act. Since Sub-section (4) of Section 3 defining the Collector, attracts the provision of Land Revenue Act, for the purposes of defining the Collector. This would be inclusive of power and duties also of Collector and Additional Collector. Under Section 8 of sub-section 4 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, it deals with the revenue Courts which defines within itself Collector, Additional Collector, Assistant Collector etc. Under Section 14-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, specifically pertains to the appointment, powers and duties which could be exercised by the Additional Collector. 7. Under Section 8 of sub-section 4 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, it deals with the revenue Courts which defines within itself Collector, Additional Collector, Assistant Collector etc. Under Section 14-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, specifically pertains to the appointment, powers and duties which could be exercised by the Additional Collector. 7. The power of appointment of Additional Collector is contained under Sub-section (1), where the State Government has been vested with the rights to appoint Additional Collector, but so far as the exercise of powers by the Additional Collector is concerned, it also provides a provision under Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A as substituted by Act No. XXI of 1992, that the Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector, in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concern may direct. On a simple reading of Subsection (3) of Section 14-A, there is no distinction which has been drawn with regard to the class of the cases which the Additional Collector could decide, subsequent to the delegation of power by the Collector. Section 14-A (3) reads as under : [14-A. Appointment, powers and duties of Additional Collectors.- (1) ……… (2) ………… (3) An Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or classes of cases as the Collector concerned may direct.]” 8. In that view of the matter, the Additional Collector can exercise the power under Sub-section 198 (4) subject to a rider attached to it, he has been delegated this power by the Collector to decide the same, irrespective of cases. 9. In the impugned order, in its second paragraph shows that though the proceedings were initiated before the Collector but the same was subsequently transferred to the Additional Collector for deciding the same. 10. Such an observation of transfer of proceedings by the Collector to the Additional Collector, fall to be within the scope of Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of the Z.A. & L.R. Act, meaning thereby, the Additional Collector, herein, was exercising the delegated powers of the Collector as given to him under Sub-section 3 of Section 14-A, so, no fault in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Collector could be held. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in [2005 (98) RD 137]. In the said judgment, the Court has held that in the absence of delegation under Section 14-A, Sub-section (3), the Additional Collector cannot pass an order under Section 198 (4) because in that eventuality, the powers could only be exercised by the Collector. 12. In the judgment, as rendered by the Allahabad High Court, the Court has derived the conclusion about the competence of the Additional Collector to decide the matter on the ground that there was no delegation given by the Collector to the Additional Collector under Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A of the Act. Hence, the Court held that there was no material brought on record that the power has been delegated. Exercise of power under Section 198 (4) of the Act by the Collector was held to be bad. Para 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder :- “7. Additional Collectors are appointed by the State Government under Section 14-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and they hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A of the said Act provides that an Additional Collector can exercise such power and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. Thus the Additional Collector is delegatee of the Collector and he has no independent power except those entrusted to him by the Collector. No such material has been brought on record to indicate that the Additional Collector, Ghazipur, had been delegated the power by the Collector to exercise the power conferred by Section 198 (4) of the Act. Thus, the Additional Collector had not authority to entertain the proceedings for cancellation of lease made in favour of the petitioner or to pass any order exercising powers conferred by Section 198(4) of the Act.” 13. In the instant case, there is a slight distinction than the case as dealt by the Allahabad High Court. Here the judgment in itself recorded the findings that the matter was remitted/transferred by the Collector. Hence, the said transfer in, itself, would be within the ambit of Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A of the Act. 14. In the instant case, there is a slight distinction than the case as dealt by the Allahabad High Court. Here the judgment in itself recorded the findings that the matter was remitted/transferred by the Collector. Hence, the said transfer in, itself, would be within the ambit of Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A of the Act. 14. In the factual backdrop of the case as decided by the Allahabad High Court, there was nothing on record which could have projected before the Court that the matter stood transferred or delegated by the Collector to the Additional Collector for deciding the proceedings under Section 198 (4). That is why the Allahabad High Court in its para 7 has held that in the absence of delegated powers, the orders passed by the Additional Collector under Section 198 (4) would be without competence. 15. Factually, this is not the situation prevailing in the instant case. The findings which has come on record shows that the Collector has transferred the proceedings to the Additional Collector while exercising its power under Subsection 3 of Section 14-A and thus, there is no restriction imposed upon the Collector transferring the proceedings under Section 198 (4). Hence, the order passed by the Collector was well within its competence and jurisdiction. 16. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 17. No order as to costs.