Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1213 (ALL)

Yadram v. State of U. P.

2019-05-06

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Irrigation, Ghaziabad dated 16.10.2006 and the order dated 26.10.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in a proceeding under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.1 2. The case of the petitioners is that they, along with certain other villagers were granted pattas on 19.12.1990, which were, as per the relevant rules, approved on 29.4.1992. Notice was issued on 15.6.2006 under section 198(4) of the 1950 Act for the cancellation of the pattas. The petitioners submitted their replies and in effect stated that there was nothing wrong in the pattas and the same were being cancelled simply because in the year 2004 acquisition of the land had taken place and the Government did not wish to pay compensation to the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently assailed the orders and submitted that the proceedings for the cancellation of the pattas could have been initiated within three years of the grant of the pattas and, therefore, the proceedings be considered as barred by limitation and the impugned orders be set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even if the application, as is alleged in the counter affidavit of the State, for the cancellation of the pattas was filed on 18.12.1992, notices as per section 198(6) of the 1950 Act ought to have been issued within five years of the filing of the application. This having not being done, it shall be deemed that the notices were issued to the petitioners without any jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further submitted that the proceedings could have been initiated provided there was a finding of fraud etc. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the pattas were being cancelled in the year 2006 i.e. almost after 14 years on the basis of there being procedural irregularities then it cannot be said that there was any fraud on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, in the absence of any finding of fraud, the proceedings could not have continued and, therefore, he submits that the orders be set aside. 4. 4. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submitted that in fact the pattas were wrongly granted and the petitioners could not take the technical plea of limitation and save their pattas. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha, I am of the view that an application for cancellation of patta could be filed only within three years of the grant of the same as has been held by this Court in Writ-C No. 22369 of 2009 (Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 19.4.2019. Further, I hold that even if the application was filed, as has been alleged to have been filed, on 18.12.1992, the same could not be acted upon after notices were issued in the year 2006 as has been held by this Court in Suresh Giri and others v. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others, 2010 (109) RD 566. Limitation is a question of jurisdiction and it can be raised at any point of time as has been held by the Supreme Court in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society. Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others 2015 (128) RD 227 (SC). 6. Under such circumstances, I hold that the order dated 16.10.2006. passed by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Irrigation, Ghaziabad and the order dated 26.10.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut cannot be sustained. They are, accordingly, quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed.