Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 481 (ALL)

Vinod v. State of U. P.

2019-02-22

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the Collector, Kushinagar has approached this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the order has submitted that the benefit under section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is granted to any agricultural labour belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who has been in occupation over a particular Gaon Sabha land from before a particular date. He submits that this benefit accrues on the basis of the fact that he had been in possession over the Gaon Sabha land. He further submits that no suit for declaration or application is required to be filed for any declaration for extending the benefit of section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. He relied upon the judgment reported in Monorey vs. Board of Revenue, AIR 2003 SC 4102 and submitted that there was no patta in his favour and, therefore, the provisions of section 198(4) of the Act could not be applied to withdraw the benefit which had accrued to him under section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. If any patta had been granted to an agricultural labourer by following the procedures prescribed under the Act only then could the provisions of section 198(4) of the Act be applied for the cancellation of the patta. In the instant case when there was no patta then the provisions of section 198(4) of the Act could not have been applied at all. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that an order passed under section 198(4) of the Act was revisable and the petitioner should have filed a Revision instead of filing the instant writ petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that if the findings arrived at in the order are perused it become abundantly clear that no right could have accrued to the petitioner under section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Counsel for the Gaon Sabha, I am of the definite view that when the petitioner was extended the benefits of section 122-B (4-F) of the Act then he became a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. There was no patta in his favour. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Counsel for the Gaon Sabha, I am of the definite view that when the petitioner was extended the benefits of section 122-B (4-F) of the Act then he became a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. There was no patta in his favour. The provisions of section 198(4-F) of the Act could have been harnessed only if there was a patta/lease which required to be cancelled. Since the order was absolutely without jurisdiction there was no requirement of filing a Revision. 7. Under such circumstances, when the proceeding itself was initiated under an absolutely wrong provision of law then the order could not be sustained in the eyes of law. The order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the Collector being without jurisdiction is thus quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.