Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 974 (ALL)

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. Board of Revenue

2024-04-04

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K.S. Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Hari Kant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Plot No. 2347 area 0.800 Hectare and Plot No. 2280 area 0.919 Hectare situated in Mauja-Pardaha, Tappa, Paragana and Tehsil-Mohammadabad Gohana ( at present Tehsil-Sadar) District-Mau was allotted to petitioner on 21.02.1982 being ex-army man (Sepoy). The aforementioned allotment was approved also by Sub-Divisional Officer on 18.09.1982. Private respondent no. 5 filed an application for cancellation of petitioner's lease on the ground that petitioner did not have any land in the village as such he is not entitled to allotment. According to petitioner, the petitioner had retired from Indian Army and fought for the country in the war of 1965 and 1971 as such petitioner is entitled for allotment of the plot in question in view of the provision contained under Section 198 (1)(f) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). Petitioner filed his objection in the aforementioned cancellation proceeding initiated by private respondent no. 5 stating that respondent no. 5 has no locus to initiate cancellation proceedings in respect to the plot which was allotted to petitioner according to provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The aforementioned cancellation proceeding was registered as Case No. 101 under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Additional Collector vide order dated 04.06.1986, cancelled the petitioner's allotment and vested the plot in question in favour of Gaon Sabha. Petitioner challenged the order dated 04.06.1986 by way of revision before Commissioner. The matter was referred before Board of Revenue by court of Commissioner. The aforementioned reference was heard by Board of Revenue and vide order dated 20th March, 1997, the reference was accepted and order of Additional Collector dated 04.06.1986 was set aside and the matter was sent back before Additional Collector to decide the cancellation proceeding afresh. In pursuance of remand order dated 20th March, 1997 passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Collector heard the matter afresh and vide order dated 12.01.2001 cancelled the petitioner's allotment. Petitioner challenged the order dated 12.01.2001 passed by Additional Collector by way of revision before Commissioner, which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2002. In pursuance of remand order dated 20th March, 1997 passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Collector heard the matter afresh and vide order dated 12.01.2001 cancelled the petitioner's allotment. Petitioner challenged the order dated 12.01.2001 passed by Additional Collector by way of revision before Commissioner, which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2002. Petitioner further challenged the order dated 22.01.2002 by way of revision before Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 115 of 2001-02. The Board of Revenue has also dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 22.07.2002 on the ground that second revision is not maintainable in view of Amending Act No. 20 of 1997, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2002 passed by respondent no. 1/Board of Revenue, judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed by respondent no. 2-Commissioner and judgment dated 12.01.2001 passed by respondent no. 3/Additional Collector. 3. This Court has entertained the matter on 08.10.2002 and granted interim protection directing the parties to maintain status quo. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2002 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of private respondent no. 5 and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was allotted the plot in question being Ex-Army Man has provided under Section 198(1)(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such the same cannot be cancelled on the private complaint/cancellation proceeding initiated by private respondent no. 5. He further submitted that respondent no. 5 is not a person aggrieved as such the cancellation proceeding initiated by respondent no. 5 is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that Additional Collector/Commissioner/Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner without conducting the inquiry as provided under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such the impugned orders are wholly illegal. He further submitted that petitioner has participated in the war of 1965 and 1971 as such the land allotted to petitioner being Ex-Army Man as provided under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be cancelled on misconceived ground. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1/2/3 are liable to be set aside and allotment made in favour of petitioner in the year 1982 be affirmed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 submitted that respondent no. 5 is bhumidhar of plot no. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1/2/3 are liable to be set aside and allotment made in favour of petitioner in the year 1982 be affirmed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 submitted that respondent no. 5 is bhumidhar of plot no. 2347 as such petitioner is not entitled to allotment in respect to plot no. 2347. He further submitted that all the three courts have recorded finding of fact against petitioner as such no interference is required against the impugned judgment passed in the proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded the gaon sabha as party in the writ petition as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that respondent no. 5 is retired Professor and petitioner is retired Army Man as such the petitioner is harassing the respondent no. 5 in one way or the other. He further submitted that bhumidhari land cannot be allotted to petitioner as such the allotment which has been made in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled under the impugned order which requires no interference by this Court. 7. Learned Standing counsel has also supported the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1/2/3 and submitted that no interference is required in the matter. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was serving Indian Army and after retirement petitioner was allotted part of the area of plot nos. 2347 and 2280 for agricultural purposes in the year 1982 and the allotment was approved vide order dated 18.09.1982. There is also no dispute about the fact that cancellation proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been initiated at the instance of private respondent no. 5 which has resulted into cancellation of petitioner's lease. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been also dismissed by the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue under the impugned orders. 10. In order to appreciate controversy involved in the matter the perusal of Section 198(1)(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant which is as under: 198. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been also dismissed by the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue under the impugned orders. 10. In order to appreciate controversy involved in the matter the perusal of Section 198(1)(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant which is as under: 198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under sections 195 and 197: (1) In the admission of persons to land as (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) or asami under section 195 or section 197 (hereinafter in this section referred to as allotment of land), the Land Management Committee shall, subject to any order made by a court under section 178, observe the following order of preference: (f) a landless person residing in the circle who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in the Armed Forces of the Union. 11. The perusal of the provision as quoted above fully demonstrate that a landless person residing in the circle, who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in armed forces of the Union, will be in preferential category for allotment of the land for agricultural purposes. Petitioner was allotted plot in question in the year 1982 being Ex-army man (Sepoy) and proceeding for cancellation has not been initiated by the State/gaon sabha rather private respondent no. 5 initiated the cancellation proceeding, which has resulted into cancellation of lease granted to petitioner in the year 1982. This Court while entertaining the petition in 2002 has granted interim order for maintaining status quo. 12. So far as claim of respondent no. 5 is concerned that he is in possession of the land in question is totally misconceived as the allotment was made in favour of petitioner in the year 1982 in respect to plot no. 2347 area 0.800 hectare and plot no. 2280 area 0.919 hectare and plot no. 2347 is minjumla plot having big area as such it cannot be said allotment of plot no. 2347 & 2280 cannot be made to petitioner. The ground of cancellation of lease is not that respondent no. 2347 area 0.800 hectare and plot no. 2280 area 0.919 hectare and plot no. 2347 is minjumla plot having big area as such it cannot be said allotment of plot no. 2347 & 2280 cannot be made to petitioner. The ground of cancellation of lease is not that respondent no. 5 is owner of plot in question and plot in question was not vacant on the date of allotment rather misconceived ground have been set up for cancellation of petitioner's lease which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 13. It is material fact that petitioner being Sepoy in Indian Army had fought two war (1965 & 1971) for the country accordingly petitioner was allotted certain plot for agriculture purpose in the year 1982 as provided under Section 198(1)(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such the same cannot be taken away from petitioner on the misconceived cancellation proceeding initiated by private respondent no. 5. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2002, 22.02.2002, 12.01.2001 passed by respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively cannot be sustained in the eye of law as such the same are hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition stands allowed and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1982 is hereby affirmed.