Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1108 (ALL)

Vijay Bahadur @ Chutunni v. State of U. P.

2022-07-16

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2022
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi and Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Raj Kumar, counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Pradeep Singh, counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had been allotted plot nos. 231, 232, 233, 234 and 236 for the residential purpose on 20.02.2006. The name of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records after the allotment in question. The respondent nos. 7 and 8 who were also allottees in the aforementioned allotment have filed an application dated 3.8.2013 under Section 122C(6) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act for cancellation of the allotment/approval dated 20.2.2006 before District Magistrate, Bhadohi. The District Magistrate, Bhadohi vide order dated 7.9.2015 rejected the applications for cancellation of the allotment filed by respondent nos. 7 and 8 holding that application has been filed with inordinate delay and also recorded finding that proceedings for allotment has taken place according to Act & Rules. Against the order dated 7.9.2015, respondent nos. 7 and 8 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by cryptic order dated 23.1.2017 allowed the revision without setting aside the findings recorded by the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 7.9.2015. Hence this petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that application for cancellation of allotment has been filed by respondent nos. 7 and 8 after 7 years which is inordinate delay. 4. He further submitted that District Magistrate while rejecting the application for cancellation of allotment has recorded finding of fact that lease was executed after following due procedure as provided under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. He further submitted that according to provisions contained under Section 122C(7) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not maintainable. He further submitted that on the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioners along with others in the year 2006, the parties are in possession thereof and raised construction over the same. He further submitted that on the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioners along with others in the year 2006, the parties are in possession thereof and raised construction over the same. He next submitted that the learned Member of Board of Revenue without setting aside the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and without any discussion on the inordinate delay regarding filing of application for cancellation of allotment as well as on maintainability of Revision, has allowed the revision by cryptic order dated 23.1.2017. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition be allowed and the revisional order be set aside and the order of the District Magistrate be restored by which the application for cancellation of allotment has been rejected. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue has mentioned the fact that list of eligible persons has not been correctly prepared, as such the revision be allowed by the Board of Revenue. He further submitted that lease has been executed in favour of the person of particular caste and there are irregularity in the execution of lease, as such the revisional order was rightly passed and in any case matter can be remanded to the courts below for further consideration. 6. I have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the allotment for residential purpose was made in favour of petitioners along with respondent nos. 7 and 8 in the year 2006 and the application for cancellation of allotment has been filed after 7 years in the year 2013. The District Magistrate has rejected the application for cancellation of allotment recording finding of fact that lease was executed after following due process of law but Board of Revenue has failed to consider the question relating to inordinate delay in filing application for cancellation of lease and even the findings recorded by the District Magistrate has not been set aside but allowed the revision saying one thing that list of eligible person was not prepared correctly. According to provisions contained under Section 122C(7) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the order passed by Collector is not maintainable. 7. According to provisions contained under Section 122C(7) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the order passed by Collector is not maintainable. 7. This Court in a case reported in Rajeshwar Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 98 RD 768 has held that Revision against the order of Collector passed in the proceeding under Section 122C(6) is not maintainable. Para No. 9 of the aforementioned judgment passed in Rajeshwar Upadhyay (supra) is as follows: “The Revisional Court while passing the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003 has observed that against the order passed by Collector revision was not maintainable, hence it is rejected. The Additional Commissioner further observed that revision was earlier dismissed on 27th October, 1999 which order was recalled without hearing the Gaon Sabha on 1st December, 1999 and without there being any valid ground for recall of the order. Copy of the order dated 27th October, 1999 has been brought on the record. No valid ground was made out for recall of the order dated 27th October, 1999 and the order dated 1st December, 1999 was not in accordance with law. The Revisional Court has rightly recalled the order dated 1st December, 1999 by which revision was allowed. The Revisional Court has also rightly held that revision itself was not maintainable against the order dated 15th November, 1996 passed by Collector in exercise of jurisdiction under section 122-C(6) of the Act. According to Section 122-C(8), the order passed under Section 122-C(6) is final and not subject to revision under Section 333 of the Act. I do not find any error in the order dated 24th September, 2003. None of the submissions raised by the petitioner has any substance. No grounds have been made out warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions of law, the impugned revisional order dated 23.1.2017 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned revisional order dated 23.1.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) is set aside and the order dated 7.9.2015 passed by Collector is restored. No order as to costs.