Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 386 (ALL)

Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-02-12

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. The case has been called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are present. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. In view of the office report dated 23. 8. 2010 service of writ petition upon respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is deemed sufficient. 3. The claim of the petitioners is that they were allotted Plot Nos. 231, 341 and 350 by respondent No. 4 i.e. Gaon Sabha after following the due procedure prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') and the Rules made thereunder. It has also been stated in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 passed a Resolution dated 24.6.1994 allotting different plots in favour of 93 villagers which included the petitioners and after verification the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as, S.D.M. ’) vide his order dated 29.6.1994 disapproved the allotment in favour of 13 villagers and approved the allotment in favour of 80 villagers which included the petitioners. However, a complaint was made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 before the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as, ‘A.D.M. ’) stating that allotment made by Gaon Sabha through its Resolution dated 24.6.1994 was illegal and made without following the proper procedure as prescribed under the Act, 1950 and Rules made thereunder, and therefore, the same may be cancelled. It appears from the records that the complainant had also stated that allotment by the Gaon Sabha in respect of Plot No. 381 was not permissible under the law as it was a play ground. On the aforesaid complaint, the A.D.M. sought a report from the concerned Tehsildar, who submitted his report dated 10. 3. 1995 and on the basis of the aforesaid report, the A.D.M. vide his order dated 23. 12. 1995 rejected the complaints filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 stating that there was no irregularity in the Resolution dated 24.6.1994 passed by the concerned Land Management Committee and in the order dated 29.6.1994 passed by the concerned S.D.M. Aggrieved, respondent Nos. 1995 and on the basis of the aforesaid report, the A.D.M. vide his order dated 23. 12. 1995 rejected the complaints filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 stating that there was no irregularity in the Resolution dated 24.6.1994 passed by the concerned Land Management Committee and in the order dated 29.6.1994 passed by the concerned S.D.M. Aggrieved, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed a Revision under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 before Commissioner, Meerut Division, District- Meerut (hereinafter referred to as, 'Commissioner'), which was numbered as Revision No. 96 of 1997-98 (State of U. P. Vs. Brahma Singh and Others). The aforesaid revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, District- Meerut (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Commissioner') vide his order dated 3.5.1999 on the ground that the allotment of Plot No. 381 was contrary to Act and the Rules, as the said plot was a play ground, and therefore, no allotment could have been made in respect of the said plot. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Additional Commissioner recorded a finding that Resolution dated 24.6.1994 passed by concerned Land Management Committee and order dated 29.6.1994 passed by concerned S.D.M. approving the said Resolution are contrary to law, and therefore, the Additional Commissioner set aside the aforesaid order of S.D.M. and cancelled the allotment made by concerned Land Management Committee through its Resolution dated 24. 6. 1994. Against the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner and other villagers filed Revision before respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Meerut Camp, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board of Revenue'), which was numbered as Revision No. 16(Z)(M)/98-99. The said revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 26.12.2001. Subsequently, petitioners filed applications before Board of Revenue praying for review of its previous order dated 26.12.2001. The aforesaid application was also dismissed by Board of Revenue vide its order dated 21.9.2004. 4. The said revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 26.12.2001. Subsequently, petitioners filed applications before Board of Revenue praying for review of its previous order dated 26.12.2001. The aforesaid application was also dismissed by Board of Revenue vide its order dated 21.9.2004. 4. Contention of the petitioners is that Board of Revenue/respondent No. 2 has wrongly dismissed Revision No. 16(Z)(M)/98-99 filed by the petitioners and their applications for review and the said orders have been passed by the Board of Revenue without considering whether Resolution dated 24.6.1994 passed by concerned Land Management Committee and order dated 29.6.1994 passed by concerned S.D.M. approving the said Resolution was valid so far as allotment in favour of the petitioners was concerned as the petitioners were allotted Plot Nos. 231, 341 and 350 and the finding regarding irregularity and prohibition on allotment recorded by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 3.5.1999 as well as the Board of Revenue relates only to Plot No. 381. 5. I have perused the records and find substance in the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners. In its impugned order dated 26.12.2001, the Board of Revenue has not considered whether the allotment in favour of the petitioners by the Land Management Committee through its Resolution dated 24.6.1994 was for any part of Plot No. 381 or was for different plots and whether there was any irregularity in the allotment of Plot Nos. 231, 341 and 350 in favour of the petitioners. 6. From perusal of the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as order dated 26.12.2001 passed by Board of Revenue, it is evident that findings have been recorded by the aforesaid authorities only regarding irregularity in relation to Plot No. 381. In case there was no irregularity so far as allotment in favour of the petitioners was concerned, Resolution dated 24.6.1994 passed by Land Management Committee could not have been set aside to the extent it concerned the petitioners. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the orders dated 26.12.2001 and 21.9.2004 passed by Board of Revenue are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, orders dated 26.12.2001 and 21.9.2004 passed by Board of Revenue are hereby set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the orders dated 26.12.2001 and 21.9.2004 passed by Board of Revenue are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, orders dated 26.12.2001 and 21.9.2004 passed by Board of Revenue are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to consider the matter afresh after considering the records and pass fresh order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. The Board of Revenue, while passing fresh orders, shall consider whether there was any irregularity in the Resolution dated 24.6.1994 or in the order dated 29.6.1994 passed by S.D.M. regarding allotment in favour of the petitioners and whether the petitioners were allotted any part of Plot No. 381. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.