Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1943 (ALL)

Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-08-13

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 115P instituted by the petitioners for cancellation of an allotment made by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the respondent No. 5 for the purposes of a cottage industry. 3. The resolution of the Gaon Sabha in this regard was approved by the S.D.M. on 23.5.1989. 4. On the cancellation application under Rule 115P being filed by the petitioners, the A.D.M. vide order 29.10.2003 cancelled the allotment. Against this order respondent No. 5 filed review which was dismissed on 9.1.2004. A Second review application was filed on 29.11.2004, which was allowed ex parte on 27.12.2004. Thereafter, the complaint under Rule 115P has been rejected on 28.1.2005. 5. Against the order rejecting the complaint under Section 115P, the petitioners preferred a revision. The revision was allowed vide order dated 31.8.2006, the order passed on 28.1.2005 was set aside and the original order passed by the A.D.M. on 29.10.2003, cancelling the allotment, was affirmed. 6. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable by referring to Sub-Section 7 of Section 122C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 7. The contention of Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate is that proceedings where from the proceedings arises under Rule 115P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules and that proceedings under Section 122C and Rule under 115P are clearly different. Even the order of preference provided for allotments under Section 123C and Rules 115L and Mare clearly different. 8. Therefore, the Board of Revenue has committed manifest illegality in holding the revision to be not maintainable. No finality could be attached to an order of the trial Court in proceedings under Section 115P, by referring to or taking shelter of sub-section 7 of Section 123C of the Act. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has tried to support the impugned order by submitting that the allotment was in accordance with law and that the initial order of cancellation of the allotment obtained in the year 2003 had been so obtained by misrepresentation of facts. The High Court therefore, in exercise of its equity jurisdiction should not interfere in the matter. The High Court therefore, in exercise of its equity jurisdiction should not interfere in the matter. 10. I have considered the submission made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. I find merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioners that the Board of Revenue has wrongly held the revision filed by the petitioner to be not maintainable. It is not in dispute and is conceded by counsel for respondent No. 5 that the proceedings where from the writ petition arises under Rule 115P. It is also correct that the order of preference provided for allotment under Section 123C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. and under Rule 115L and M are clearly different. An allotment made under B/122C can be cancelled, exercising powers conferred by Section 122C(4) which an allotment made under Rule 115L or 115M can be cancelled on a complaint under Rule 115R. 12. Under the circumstances, therefore the two proceeding's cannot be equated to each other and for this reason alone, sub-section 7 of Section 123C has no application to proceedings under Rule 115P. For this reason alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 13. The matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision on its merits after hearing all concerned. 14. It is also provided that this exercise be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Board of Revenue. No costs.