Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 68 (ALL)

BHOORA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-08

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jayant Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 10, 15, 18 & 20 and Sri Dharm Vir Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no. 8. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. whereby a revision filed against the order dated 7.1.2017 in appeal has been rejected. 3. The petitioner claims to be allottee of land belonging to Gram Sabha pursuant to the meeting of the Land Management Committee held on 14.12.2013. 4. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners is that after perusal of the record of allotment of the Gram Sabha land, Collector/District Magistrate, Sambhal had proceeded to approve the allotment proposal of the Land Management Committee vide order dated 27.6.2016. The objection to the said allotment was made only on the ground that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 173 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Rules, 1952 had not been followed. There is no objection with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners who belong to backward classes and are landless labourers residing in the village. 5. Submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that the mere fact that the meeting of the Land Management Committee was held within three days of the Munadi, it cannot be said that the procedure provided under Rule 173 of the Rules, 1952 had not been followed. Further that no consequence whatsoever has been provided under the Act and rules for not following the aforesaid procedure, the cancellation could not be done. The list of eligible persons was drawn and the allotment was made from amongst those after verification of their eligibility and for fulfilling the conditions provided under Section 198 of the Act. No one had been left out in the village as alleged in the order of the Commissioner. It was not open for the Commissioner to set aside the approval order passed by the Collector who had proceeded to approve after proposal of the record. 6. On the contrary, it is contended by Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are persons belonging to Harizan caste. They were not aware of any allotment made in the village. 6. On the contrary, it is contended by Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are persons belonging to Harizan caste. They were not aware of any allotment made in the village. The proceedings were conducted in a clandestine manner in the office without proper Munadi and proclamation of the meeting. Moreover, the fact that the meeting of the Land Management Committee was held within three days of the munadi itself shows that all eligible were not considered. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is note worthy that for allotment of Gram Sabha land, procedure has been provided under Rules 173 to 176-A of the Rules 1952. Rule 173 categorically provides that proposed meeting of the Land Management Committee shall be notified by beat of drum in the circle of the Gram Sabha whether the land is situated at least seven days before the date of said meeting. Notifying the number of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made. The purpose of 7 days of notification/proclamation provided in Rule 173 is to put all eligible persons in the village to notice so that they may stake their claim for allotment of Gram Sabha land placing the material or their eligibility. After the said proclamation, list of all the persons who are present and who express their desire to be admitted to the land shall be prepared in Z. A. Form 57-A as per Rule 174. 8. The names of the persons has to be arranged in the said list in the order of preference as laid down in Section 198 of the Act. 9. In the instant case, it is admitted that Munadi of the proposed meeting of Land Management Committee was done on 11.12.2013 and the meeting for proposed allotment was held on 14.12.2013. It is categorically recorded in the order impugned by the Additional Commissioner that the list of eligible persons drawn by the Land Management Committee was faulty. Only 14 persons were included in the said list out of which two belonging to scheduled caste category whereas remaining for backward classes. Other person resident of the village who belonged to scheduled caste category and landless labourers had not been included. Only 14 persons were included in the said list out of which two belonging to scheduled caste category whereas remaining for backward classes. Other person resident of the village who belonged to scheduled caste category and landless labourers had not been included. As the eligibility list was found faulty and the procedure was defective, the Additional Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that the mandatory procedure as provided under Rules 173 to 176-A of the Rules 1952 had not been followed. 10. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 7.1.2017 in cancelling the proposal of Land Management Committee dated 14.12.2013 which was approved by Sub Divisional Officer on 10.7.2014. Even otherwise, the matter has been remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sambhal to examine the eligibility list and prepare a fresh list after including all eligible persons and then proceed for allotment of Gram Sabha land. 11. For all the above noted reasons, no merit is found in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and they had shown their crops which is standing on the same. The prayer made by learned Senior Advocate for granting interim protection to the petitioners cannot be entertained at this stage for the reason that the fact of delivery of possession by the competent Authority is not known. 13. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Collector, Sambhal by moving a proper application, who shall examine the matter at his end.