HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Reserved on 22.09.2015. A.F.R. Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53491 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ram Karan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava on behalf of respondent no. 4, the Land Management Committee and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The writ petition arises out proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and challenges the order dated 19.03.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the allotment of plot nos. 1455 area 0.304, 686 area 0.283 and 702 area 0.061 in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2, dismissing the consequential revision of the petitioner.
The allotment of plot nos. 1455 area 0.304, 686 area 0.283 and 702 area 0.061 made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that it was made when that the petitioner was a member of the Land Management Committee without the prior permission of the Collector, as required under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
The case of the petitioner before the courts below was that the allotment in his favour was made after obtaining the prior permission of the Sub Divisional Officer on 16.01.1990. This contention has been rejected by the courts below.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have misconstrued the provisions contained in Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Relying upon section 2 (e) of the Act, he submits that the said provision mentions, Collector District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Magistrate with reference to Gaon Sabha and provides that they mean the Collector or District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate of the District or the Sub Division as the case may be in which the Gaon Sabha is constituted and shall include the Additional Collector, Additional District Magistrate and Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Section 28-C of the Act reads as follows:-
"Section 28-C. Members and officers not to acquire interest in contranct, etc. with Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.- (1) No member or office bearer of [Gram Panchayat] or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale, exchange, contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the Samiti concerned:
Provided that a person shall not be deemed to acquire or attempt to acquire or continue to have or stipulate for or agree to receive any share or interest in any contract or employment by reason only of his-
(a) having acquired any interest before he became a member or office bearer;
(b) having a share in a joint stock company which makes the contract; and
(c) having a share or interest in the occasional sale through the Samiti concerned of an article in which he regularly trades up to a value not exceeding Rs. 50 in any one year.
(2) No Court or other authority shall enforce at the instance of any person a claim based upon a transaction in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1)."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that the Collector or District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate have the same powers under the Act and, therefore, the permission that was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Sub Divisional Magistrate) was in accordance with law and in holding, to the contrary, the courts below have committed manifest illegality.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order and have contended that in case the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, there would be no difference between the Collector, District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Officer.
Section 2 (e) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act relied upon by the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow:-
"(e) "Collector" or 'District Magistrate' or 'Sub-Divisional Magistrate' with reference to a 3[Gram Sabha], means the Collector District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the district or the sub-division, as the case may be, in which such [Gram Sabha] is constituted; [and shall respectively include Additional Collector, Additional District Magistrate and Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate]."
From a bare reading of the provision quoted above, it is clear that this provision, relied upon by the petitioner, merely provides that the Collector or District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate with reference to a Gaon Sabha means the respective District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the district or its Sub Division, in which the Gaon Sabha is situated. The said provision does not in any manner provide that the Collector or District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are one and the same.
The Collector of a district as also his powers had been provided for in Section 14 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 18 of the same Act provides for the appointment of Sub-Divisional Officers and also defines their powers.
Section 14 of the Act reads as follows:-
"Section 14. Collector of the district.- The State Government shall appoint in each district an officer who shall be the Collector of the district and who shall, throughout his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by this Act or any other law for the time being in force."
Section 18 of the Act reads as follows:-
"Section 18. Sub-Divisional Officers and Additional Sub-Divisional Officers.- (1) The State Government may place any Assistant Collector of the First class in-charge of one or more sub-division of a district, and may remove him therefrom.
(2) Such Assistant Collector shall be called an Assistant Collector in-charge of a sub-division of a district or a Sub-Divisional Officer and shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed upon him by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, subject to the control of the Collector.
(3) The State Government may designate any Assistant Collector of the first class appointed to a district to be Additional Sub-Divisional Officer in one or more sub-divisions of the district.
(4) The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer shall exercise such powers and perform such duties of an Assistant Collector-in-charge of a sub-division of a district in such cases or classes of cases as the State Government may direct.
(5) The provisions of this Act and of every other law for the time being applicable to a Sub-Divisional Officer when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub-section (4) as if he were a Sub-Divisional Officer.
(6) The State Government may delegate its powers under this section to the Collector of the district and may revoke such delegation."
From the aforementioned two provisions it is clear that there is a clear distinction between a Collector of the district and a Sub-Divisional Officer. Besides, sub-section (2) of Section 18 clearly provides that a Sub-Divisional Officer is subordinate to the Collector. It is therefore clear that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to grant permission for the allotment in favour of the petitioner, a member of the Land Management Committee, is entirely misconceived and without any substance, at all whatsoever.
The alternative submission made is that sub-section (6) of Section 18 authorizes the State Government to delegate its power to the Collector and, therefore, there is a possibility that the powers of the Collector could be delegated upon the Sub-Divisional Officer on the relevant date.
Even this submission is devoid of merits. Under the said sub-section (6), it is the State which can delegate its powers to the Collector. There is no provision for the Collector delegating his powers to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly devoid of merits.
The impugned orders which have cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he was a member of the Land Management Committee and the allotment was made in his favour without the prior permission of the Collector, as required by Section 28-C of the Act, cannot be faulted with.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2015 Mayank