JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against an order dated 13.02.1985 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Reference no.469 of 1983 – 84/Ghazipur, accepting the said Reference and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ghazipur, dated 26.05.1982; consequentially, the agricultural patta granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Also, impugned in the Writ Petition is the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in Revision no.125 of 1982, allowing the Revision and making a Reference to the Board that the order of the Additional Collector, last mentioned, be set aside. 2. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3, Deo Dhari son of Lahiri. Sri Satish Mohan Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5. 3. The facts giving rise to this petition indicate that information about the proposed allotment of agricultural land on patta, was made through proclamation by beat of drum in Village Kodai, Pargana Pachhoda, Tehsil and District Ghazipur (presently Tehsil Kasmabad). This proclamation by beat of drum, about the proposed meeting of the Land Management Committee to consider eligible persons for allotment of land on patta, was made on 13.02.1976. The meeting of the Land Management Committee was scheduled for 21.02.1976. A meeting of the Land Management Committee was actually convened on 21.02.1976, and by a Resolution of the said date, land was allotted to various persons over different plot numbers of varying area, all agricultural in nature. A copy of the Resolution dated 21.02.1976 has been annexed as Annexure RA-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit, dated 12.07.2004, filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he was allotted land comprising khasra plot nos.341, 340, 376, 512, 513, 339, totaling a six plots and admeasuring 2 –13 –15. Approval to the aforesaid Resolution was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 23.02.1976. 4. Respondent no.3, Deo Dhari, filed a complaint under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short, the 'Act') to the Collector on 08.01.1978, alleging irregularities in allotment of the patta in favour of the petitioner, and asking the same to be cancelled. Approval to the aforesaid Resolution was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 23.02.1976. 4. Respondent no.3, Deo Dhari, filed a complaint under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short, the 'Act') to the Collector on 08.01.1978, alleging irregularities in allotment of the patta in favour of the petitioner, and asking the same to be cancelled. The complaint was assigned to the Additional Collector, before whom it came up for determination on 26.05.1982, and rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.1982, rejecting his complaint under Section 198(4) of the Act, the third respondent preferred a Revision to the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, under Section 333-A of the Act. The Additional Commissioner, before whom the Revision was registered as Revision no.125 of 1982, allowed the same and made a Reference to the Board of Revenue that the order of the Additional Collector rejecting the complaint be set aside, and the patta granted in favour of the petitioner, be cancelled. Parties were directed to file their objections before the Board within thirty days. Before the Board, the Reference was registered as Reference no.469 of 1983 – 84, which has been accepted in terms, detailed hereinbefore. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the patta holder, and has suffered cancellation by the order impugned made by the Board, has preferred the present Writ petition. 7. This petition was admitted to hearing on 19.04.1985, and by an interim order of the said date, the operation of the order dated 13.02.1985 passed by the Board, was directed to remain stayed. Further, by the order made on the stay application, parties were directed to put in their affidavits. 8. A Counter Affidavit, dated 30.01.1986 has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, to which a Rejoinder Affidavit, referred to hereinbefore, has been filed in the year 2004. It also deserves mention here that, along with the Counter Affidavit, respondent no.3 filed a temporary injunction application, also dated 30.09.1986, wherein this Court issued notice to the petitioner and restrained him from making any further construction or changing nature of the land in dispute until further orders. The State or the Gaon Sabha have not filed any return. It is on the aforesaid state of pleadings that this matter has been heard. 9. The State or the Gaon Sabha have not filed any return. It is on the aforesaid state of pleadings that this matter has been heard. 9. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a native of Village Kodai, and is a landless agricultural labourer. It is pleaded that prior to the meeting of the Land Management Committee, where the Resolution since approved, proposing grant of patta in favour of the petitioner was passed, there was proclamation by beat of drum about the scheduled meeting. It has emerged from the record, as already mentioned that proclamation by beat of drum was undertaken on 13.02.1976, the meeting being indicated to be scheduled and actually held on 21.02.1976. It is urged that the meeting was held clearly beyond the minimum stipulated period of seven days between the proclamation by beat of drum and convening of the meeting. There is no issue between parties about the approval granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 23.02.1976. It is asserted by the petitioner for a fact that the meeting of the Land Management Committee, where this allotment was made, was convened at the residence of the Chairman of the Gaon Sabha. It is also pleaded that list of eligible persons in Forms 57-Ka and 57-Kha of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules (for short, the 'Rules') were duly drawn up. It is also pleaded specifically that there is no well or Devsthan near plot no.513 (one of the plots allotted to the petitioner) that may render the land unfit to be allotted under Section 195 of the Act. 10. This Court has been taken through the order of the Additional Collector, who rejected the complaint, by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has been recorded there for a fact that some documentary evidence by way of khatauni of different Fasli Years, has been filed, which shows that the name of the petitioner's father is recorded as one of the co-sharers in khata no.573 of Village Saranwa, Pargana Mau, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh. There is another khatauni filed which shows the father of the petitioner along with his brothers, to be a native of Village Bamani, Pargana Mau, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh. It has been noticed that PW-2, a witness appearing for the complaint, has claimed the petitioner to be a native of Village Bamani. There is another khatauni filed which shows the father of the petitioner along with his brothers, to be a native of Village Bamani, Pargana Mau, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh. It has been noticed that PW-2, a witness appearing for the complaint, has claimed the petitioner to be a native of Village Bamani. The other witnesses for the complainant, claim the petitioner to be a native of Village Bamani, but the extracts of khatauni filed by the complainant, show that the petitioner and his father are natives of Village Saranwa. The Sub-Divisional Officer has concluded that there is an inherent contradiction in the complainant's evidence about the village where the petitioner resides. It has also been remarked that Faujdar, who has been shown to be a native of Village Saranwa is, in fact, the same Faujdar, who is the petitioner's father, is not substantiated by any evidence. Then the Sub-Divisional Officer has noticed that in his cross-examination, the complainant, respondent no.3, has acknowledged the fact that the petitioner has got his house built at Village Kodai. It has also been recorded for a fact that from a perusal of the Pariwar Register, it is clear that the petitioner is resident of Village Kodai. So far as the question of proclamation by beat of drum is concerned, the Sub-Divisional Officer has recorded a finding which says that one Suraj was entrusted with the task of carrying out the mandatory proclamation by beat of drum, and that for the aforesaid work, he was paid a sum of Rs.2/-in remuneration. It is recorded that in the document relating to proclamation, the date of meeting has been indicated to be 21.02.1976, which clearly shows it to be seven days after the proclamation. The members of the Land Management Committee were informed of the meeting at the Pradhan's residence ahead of schedule, on 17.02.1976. The Sub-Divisional Officer has recorded that list in Forms 57-Ka and 57-Kha show that the petitioner is a landless labourer. It is also recorded that no such document, such as a khatauni has been filed on record, which may demonstrate that the petitioner is possessed of land, that may disentitle him to allotment. It is also recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the complainant in his cross-examination has acknowledged that the complainant has land to the extent of 1.5 bigha. It is also recorded that no such document, such as a khatauni has been filed on record, which may demonstrate that the petitioner is possessed of land, that may disentitle him to allotment. It is also recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the complainant in his cross-examination has acknowledged that the complainant has land to the extent of 1.5 bigha. Here, it has been remarked by the Sub-Divisional Officer that in the receipt relating to proclamation by beat of drum, the gata numbers and their area, were not indicated; but, there is a further remark that no person in the eligibility list has remained deprived of allotment. It has also been held that the Sub-Divisional Officer's permission has been granted on 23.02.1976, and that the land subject matter of allotment is not a well or Devsthan, that may not be open to allotment. 11. The Additional Commissioner has proceeded to accept the Revision and make a reference to set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer's order primarily on ground that in the proclamation held on 13.02.1976, plot number and the area, as well as venue of the scheduled meeting, have not been mentioned. It is, on these findings, that the Commissioner has held that there is violation of Rule 173 of the Rules, vitiating the allotment. There is a further finding that the Sub-Divisional Officer while granting approval, does not show that he has ensured that the order of preference has been adhered to, and those allotted the land, are all eligible. On the basis of these findings, Reference made to the Board to set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer's order, and further to cancel the petitioner's patta has been accepted. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Board of the Revenue shows that the Board has echoed the findings of the Additional Commissioner, without reference to the evidence on record, to reach his conclusions. He has accepted the findings of the Additional Commissioner for a gospel, and then referred to various statutory provisions, which if evidence be forthcoming, would render the allotment of the patta bad. There is not be found across the length and breadth of the Board’s order, any finding based on evidence aliunde, affirming facts that show violation of Rule 173 or Rule 174. There is not be found across the length and breadth of the Board’s order, any finding based on evidence aliunde, affirming facts that show violation of Rule 173 or Rule 174. The Board has merely referred to what the Additional Commissioner has said and then paraphrased what the requirements of Rules 173 and 174 are. There is at the tail end of the order, an abrupt conclusion saying that the above quoted Rules, have not been followed in the grant of patta to the concerned parties. The proclamation is said not to mention the plot numbers and the area of the plots, that were to be allotted, super-added with a finding that list in Forms 57-Ka & Kha, have not been drawn up. There is also remark that no effort has been made to allot land in the order of preference laid down in Section 198(1) of the Act. These findings, at the end of the order, do not say, on the basis of what evidence these conclusions have been drawn. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that proclamation by beat of drum was undertaken on 13.02.1976, and the meeting scheduled on 21.02.1976 at the residence of the Pradhan. It is argued that the finding that in the proclamation by beat of drum, the plot number, the area and the date of meeting were not indicated, is based on no evidence. It is also argued that lists in Forms 57-Ka and 57-Kha were duly drawn up, and allotments made precisely on the basis of the said lists, which carry names of eligible persons. 13. In the Counter Affidavit filed by respondent no.3, no document has been brought on record to indicate that proclamation by beat of drum did not carry the necessary particulars about the plot numbers to be allotted, their area or the scheduled date, venue and the time of meeting. Contrariwise, a perusal of the Rejoinder Affidavit shows that in the Resolution adopted in the meeting of the Land Management Committee, dated 21.02.1976, allotting the patta in question in favour of the petitioner, there is a clear recital that the list of eligible persons was read out, and then unanimously the Resolution was adopted. Contrariwise, a perusal of the Rejoinder Affidavit shows that in the Resolution adopted in the meeting of the Land Management Committee, dated 21.02.1976, allotting the patta in question in favour of the petitioner, there is a clear recital that the list of eligible persons was read out, and then unanimously the Resolution was adopted. It is also recorded in the said Resolution that persons, to whom land was allotted on patta, had their names, plot numbers, area, land revenue, read out as recorded in the Resolution. 14. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has relied upon a decision of this Court in Moinuddin vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad and others, 2002 (93) 648. He has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 10 of the Report, the relevant part of whereof reads thus: “10. The land in dispute is not covered by any one of the aforesaid clauses of Section 195. Therefore, the same could not be subject matter of allotment under any provision of the Act. The allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the contesting respondents was, thus, made wholly without jurisdiction and on the basis of the same, the contesting respondents cannot get any right in the land in dispute. Further, according to the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, the provisions of Rules 173 and 174 of the rules framed under the Act were not followed and the provisions of Section 28 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act were violated. Neither there was announcement by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting of the Land Management Committee for admission of the land regarding number of plots, their areas, the date on which admission/allotment was to be made nor the list of landless persons was prepared nor other provisions contained under Rules 174, 175 and 176 were followed and allotment was made in violation of the provisions of Section 28 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, as stated above. Thus, the allotment was totally illegal and without jurisdiction. …......” 15. Thus, the allotment was totally illegal and without jurisdiction. …......” 15. The Court has looked into the aforesaid decision, which turns primarily on the fact that the land in dispute was not covered by any one of the various clauses of Section 198, that specify land which may be subject matter of allotment under the provisions of the Act. The decision so far as it finds that Rules 173 and 174 of the Rules, have not been followed, are based on a finding that there was no proclamation by beat of drum in circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land was situate, seven days ahead before the scheduled meeting of the Land Management Committee, and that the area and plot numbers to be considered for allotment, were also not conveyed; and still more the list of landless persons was not prepared in accordance with Rules 174, 175 and 176. 16. In the opinion of this Court, those facts are vastly different than those obtaining in the present case. Here is a case where the fact of proclamation by beat of drum is not in dispute. The dispute here is confined to the fact that there is no record of the plot numbers and area, mentioned at the time of proclamation by beat of drum, about which too there is no evidence. 17. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 then placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shobha Ram vs. State of U.P. And others, 2004 (97) RD 178. He has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Report, which are extracted below: “5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in respect of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 27.10.1996 only 93 pattas were granted. Various complaints were made, and an inquiry was conducted. In this inquiry it was found that pattas were granted on back date and in an irregular manner. Rule 173 of the Rules was not followed. The Pargana Adhikari found that 25 pattas were granted against the rules to the persons who were not eligible. Hence the pattas were cancelled. 7. In para 4 it is stated that the petitioner is not Patta holder of the land in question. It seems that pattas were granted hurriedly and in an irregular manner. Papers were not sent to the Revenue Inspector nor was mutation done. Hence the pattas were cancelled. 7. In para 4 it is stated that the petitioner is not Patta holder of the land in question. It seems that pattas were granted hurriedly and in an irregular manner. Papers were not sent to the Revenue Inspector nor was mutation done. The proceedings were not entered in the Patta Register nor was it sent to the concerned officer. Various irregularities are mentioned in detail in para 4 of the counter-affidavit. It appears that the pattas were granted in collusion with the Pargana Adhikari due to which the Land. Management Committee has suffered loss. The pattas were not granted legally in accordance with the rules. It was done on back date and fictitious papers were prepared. The pattas were approved in collusion with the Pargana Adhikari. The proceedings were all farzi.” A perusal of the decision shows that on the basis of evidence, it was found that 25 patta were granted against rules to persons who were not eligible, and further that the allotment was made hurriedly in an irregular manner. There are findings that papers were not sent to the Revenue Inspector, nor was mutation done. The proceedings were not entered in the Patta Register, or were these sent to the concerned Officers. There is a further finding that the allotment was made in collusion with the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is also recorded that the entire exercise was undertaken on an antedated basis, and fictitious papers were produced. 18. This Court must remark that on findings such as those recorded by the Division Bench in Shobha Ram (supra), a patta is certainly liable to be cancelled. The facts obtaining in the present case, do not show even a hint of illegality or manipulation of the kind, that fell for consideration of their Lordships in Shobha Ram (supra). The authority in Shobha Ram (supra) is, thus, of no assistance to the third respondent. 19. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Tota Ram (dead) through LRs and others vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad and others, 2011 (114) RD 255. He has referred to paragraphs 6, 7, 8 & 9. 19. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Tota Ram (dead) through LRs and others vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad and others, 2011 (114) RD 255. He has referred to paragraphs 6, 7, 8 & 9. The decision in Tota Ram (dead) through LRs (supra) indicates that there was admission in paragraph 3 of the objections filed on behalf of the petitioners, that neither plot number or the exact land which was to be allotted was ever made known as required by Rule 173 of the Rules. It was on account of the petitioners' admission that cancellation of their patta was held valid for violation of Rule 173. 20. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand hand has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Jasveer and others vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Ghaziabad and another, 2011 (113) RD 741. Para 6 of the Report reads thus: “6. The earlier case was instituted by one Ved Prakash which was numbered as case No. 61 of 1995-94. The A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) Ghaziabad who decided the matter in question on 16.6.1999 summoned the file of the earlier case also. The earlier case was dismissed in default on 9.12.1997. The A.D.M. in the impugned order also found that in the date of Munadi there was cutting and there after 14.6.1992 was mentioned and in that plot numbers and area were not mentioned which was required to be mentioned in accordance with Rule 173 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Rules. It is also mentioned that no list of deserving persons was prepared and the list of allottees had already been prepared before the start of the meeting. It was also found by A.D.M. that Khasra plot No. 84 area 3 bigha fasli which was entered as Khalian was changed to Navin Parhti. Some other irregularities were also found by the A.D.M. Revisional Court also fully approved the finding of the A.D.M. I am of the opinion that on the ground of minor irregularities allotment can not be set aside. However, the fact that fathers, husbands or sons of the allottees were already having agricultural land was sufficient ground to cancel the allotment. Similarly, conversion of khalian into navin parhti was also illegal. However, the fact that fathers, husbands or sons of the allottees were already having agricultural land was sufficient ground to cancel the allotment. Similarly, conversion of khalian into navin parhti was also illegal. Gaon sabha or S.D.O. can not change the user of the land from Khalian to Banjar etc.” The law laid down in Jasveer and others (supra) indicates that on ground of minor irregularities relating to non-mention about the plot number and area in accordance with Rule 173 of the Rules at the time of proclamation by beat of drum, the allotment cannot be set aside. 21. This Court is of opinion that the requirement of Rule 173 are, indeed, mandatory, which reads to the following effect: “173. Sections 195, 197 and 198: Admission to land.–Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made.” 22. Likewise, the compliance with Rule 174 of the Rules, would also be mandatory. Rule 174 reads: “174. On the said date, a meeting of the Committee shall be held to select persons for admission to land as sirdar or asami as the case may be. A list of all persons who are present and who express their desire to be admitted to the land shall be prepared in Z.A. Form 57-A. The list shall be drawn up separately in respect of the land to be settled to a sirdar and to be settled to an asami. The names of the persons shall be arranged in the list in the order of preference laid down in Section 198.” 23. This Court is of opinion that if there were breach, indeed, of the requirements postulated under Sections 173 and 174 discernible on the basis of tangible evidence, the allotment would be bad. But, in the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer, who had the entire record before him, and is a Court of fact, has clearly held that there was strict compliance with the mandatory time period required between proclamation by beat of drum and the date of scheduled meeting. But, in the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer, who had the entire record before him, and is a Court of fact, has clearly held that there was strict compliance with the mandatory time period required between proclamation by beat of drum and the date of scheduled meeting. The remark in the Sub-Divisional Officer's order about the number of the plots and area not being mentioned, is violation of what Rule 173 envisages. It does not, however, say specifically that the said fact is not mentioned in the proclamation, or there is some reliable evidence, even oral, which shows that the plot numbers and the area thereof was not mentioned at the time of proclamation by beat of drum. All that is said is that in the receipt of proclamation (Munadi Ki Raseed), plot number and area, has not been mentioned. Now, a receipt about the proclamation would refer to the document showing receipt of charges by the man who carried out proclamation by beat of drum. The document is not traceable to any other identity, than this receipt of professional charges or fee by the person carrying out the proclamation by beat of drum. This is so as in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, it does figure that one Suraj, who carried out the proclamation by beat of drum, was paid a sum of Rs.2/-. This Court is of opinion that in a document, like a receipt of charges relating to proclamation above mentioned, details of the plot number or the area of the plots, scheduled to be considered for allotment in the meeting, cannot lead to an inference that the mandatory provisions of Rule 173 have been violated. In the order of the Commissioner making a Reference to the Board, or the Board itself, there is no reference to any specific document, which may indicate that in the proclamation carried by beat of drum, the plot number or the area, were not mentioned. The presumption of regularity attaches to every official act; it would attach to an act done even by a private person acting as an arm of the State. The person carrying out proclamation by beat of drum on behalf of Land Management Committee, is performing a public function in furtherance of not only a public duty, but in fulfillment of a statutory duty under Rule 173 of the Rules. The person carrying out proclamation by beat of drum on behalf of Land Management Committee, is performing a public function in furtherance of not only a public duty, but in fulfillment of a statutory duty under Rule 173 of the Rules. The presumption as to regularity about official acts, is a principle provided for under Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies presumptions of fact, and even where the Evidence Act does not apply proprio vigore, the principles embodied there are certainly applicable by analogy wherever these are relevant, and not expressly excluded. There is absolutely no basis in the absence of any evidence mentioned in the orders of the Authorities below to conclude that the proclamation by beat of drum did not conform to the requirement of Rule 173, on account of the omission to mention the plot numbers and the area of the plots, that were allotted on 21.02.1976 by the Land Management Committee. On an equitable note, the petitioner is still in possession, may be on account of the interim order dated 19.04.1985, and it would be, indeed, very inequitable to disturb him at this stage as he is otherwise not disputed to be a landless labourer and an eligible person. 24. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, dated 13.02.1985 in Reference no.469 of 1983 – 84, Deo Dhari vs. Nagina, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as costs.