Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2814 (ALL)

Dharmendra v. State of U. P.

2019-12-18

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri O.P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naushad Siddiqui, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the respondent No. 3 in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the 1950 Act) and also the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 97 of 2006/07 whereby the order cancelling the allotment has been affirmed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the land in question was a public utility land of the nature as described under Section 132 of the 1950 Act. That being the position, the allotment of the said land could not have been made and there is no illegality in the proceedings which have been initiated for cancellation of the allotment. 4. As regards the other contention that the order of cancellation of allotment could have been made only by the Collector and not by the Additional Collector, this Court may take notice of the fact that the aforesaid question has been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue and others, AIR 2008 All 144 .. 5. The Full Bench in the case of Brahm Singh (supra) while considering the question as to whether the powers of the Collector under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be exercised by the Additional Collector held that the Additional Collector when he acts and discharges the duties and functions or exercises such powers of a Collector either under the 1901 Act or under any other Act for the time being in force, the powers would be deemed to have been exercised by him as Collector of the district under that Act. The relevant observations made in this regard are as follows: "14. It is the above provision under which, the Additional Collector is appointed by the State Government. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 14-A in the present form were enacted by U.P. Act No. 21 of 1962. Under sub-section (3) of Section 14-A, the Additional Collector exercises all such powers and discharges such duties of Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned directs. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 14-A in the present form were enacted by U.P. Act No. 21 of 1962. Under sub-section (3) of Section 14-A, the Additional Collector exercises all such powers and discharges such duties of Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned directs. Sub-section (4) of Section 14-A further provides that the Additional Collector while exercising power and discharging duties under sub-section (3) under this Act, i.e. 1901 Act and under any other law for the time being applicable to the Collector, acts as a Collector of the district. In other words, the Additional Collector exercises powers and discharges duties under sub-section (3) of Section 14-A as Collector of the district. Therefore, by legal fiction the order passed and the jurisdiction exercised by the Additional Collector by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 14-A would be deemed to be that of a Collector of the district because of sub-section (4) of Section 14-A of 1901 Act. Thus, the Additional Collector when acts and discharges duties and functions or exercises such powers of a Collector either under 1901 Act or under, any other Act for the time being in force, that would be deemed to have been exercised by him as Collector of the district under that Act. Thus, the Additional Collector has all the powers of a Collector under sub-section (4) of Section 14-A when he exercises power under sub-section (3) of Section 14-A." 6. The aforementioned position with regard to the Additional Collector exercising powers of the Collector has been considered by this Court in the context of the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in a recent judgment in the case of Seetla v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 11406/2012, decided on 5.12.2019. 7. It may therefore, be reiterated that Additional Collector when he acts and discharges the duties and functions or exercises such powers of a Collector either under the 1901 Act or under any other Act for the time being in force, the powers would be deemed to have been exercised by him as Collector of the district under that Act. 8. The argument raised by the petitioner with regard to the Additional Collector not having jurisdiction to pass the order impugned is thus legally not tenable. 9. No other point has been urged. 10. 8. The argument raised by the petitioner with regard to the Additional Collector not having jurisdiction to pass the order impugned is thus legally not tenable. 9. No other point has been urged. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the orders which are sought to be challenged so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.