The Supreme Court recently decided on a matter where a portion of a plot which was designated as a Panchayat Ghar was re-assigned for residential use and allotted to different individuals. After 13 years, the Tehsildar proposed for the cancellation of the allotments but the petitioners asked to decide on the issue of limitation first.
A division bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. It was held that the allotment was made based on the approval granted by the then Sub- District Magistrate and the poor rustic villagers have been residing in the buildings for several years therefore unsettle them would result in heaping injustice.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the year 1969-70, a plot in Rampur Kedhar Village, UP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion of the said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant Collector and subsequently different plots of land in said survey number came to be allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners under Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (UPZALR Act). After 13 years, the Secretary of Bhumi Prabandhank Samiti, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar opining that the Panchayat Ghar has been unlawfully allotted for residential use and he proposed for cancellation of the allotments made and to take possession of the land from all the allottees including writ petitioners.
The petitioner filed an application to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, since the proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment. The Additional Collector was of the view that action initiated being suo moto, no limitation has been provided under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act; that during the consolidation proceedings the land had been specified “Panchayat Ghar” and it was covered under Section 132(6) of the UPZALR Act; the allotment of land being irregular and no time limit having been fixed for cancellation of allotment. Hence, he arrived at a conclusion that there is no limitation fixed under the Act and proceeded to reject the application filed. Being aggrieved by the said order a revision petition was filed which came to be entertained on merits and dismissed. Then a writ petition was filed which came to be dismissed on two grounds namely the revision petition filed was not maintainable in the teeth of Section 122-C(7); and, on the ground that impugned order passed by the Additional Collector over-ruling the objections of the writ petitioners with regard to limitation is correct and it was meritless.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned counsel contented that in this case the revenue was empowered under the UPZALR Act to cancel the illegal and fraudulent allotment of land to the petitioners. There was no limitation specified under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act and particularly when the land in question had been reserved as Panchayat Ghar it would be governed under Section 132 of the UPZALR Act. He further contented that where a bhumidhar uses the land for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry it would be in contravention of Section 143 and admittedly no permission had been procured for the usage of the land for residential purposes as required under Section 143.
Hence, he contended that the authorities were within their jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for cancelling the allotment and the revenue authorities as well as the High Court had rightly rejected the writ petition whereunder they had sought for the suit being dismissed as barred by limitation.
Observation of the Court:
The court at the outset relied on the case of Commssioner, Revenue and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 SCC 507 which held that Section 122C(6) empowers the collector to enquire with regard to the manner of allotment being irregular and he may proceed to cancel the allotment if he satisfies that such allotment is irregular. However, the main question here is that whether such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length of time or any point of time where no limitation is prescribed. The Court discussed the same in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited (2007) 11 SCC 363, where it was held that “It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.”
This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue in the matter of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667 namely the exercise of suo moto power under Section 50-B(4) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 i.e., can it be at any time or such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time and if so, within what time?. The learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that suo moto power of revision ought to have been exercised within a reasonable period, though Section 50-B (4) of the Act empowers the authority to exercise such suo moto power at any time.
The court further observed whether the issue of fraud would arise in the instant case. It was seen that the perusal of the facts of the case does not suggest or indicate of any fraud having occurred or alleged against the petitioners. However, in the report submitted by the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate, it has been stated that the subject land had been preserved for Panchayat Ghar and that the file does not bear the signature of the then SubDistrict Magistrate and the Tehsildar is also said to have found certain irregularities. However, the basis of such conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having been forged is not specified or in other words report is silent. Also, no allegation of whatsoever nature has been attributed to the allottees having forged the signature/s. In this background, the court is of the view that the principles enunciated in Ibrahimpatnam’s case (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts on hand and as such the order impugned herein cannot be sustained.
The Decision of the Court:
The Court concluded that the allotment was made based on the approval granted by the then Sub- District Magistrate and the poor rustic villagers have been residing in the buildings constructed by them for several years and to unsettle them would result in heaping injustice.
The appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 has been set aside.
Case Title: Smt. Shyamo Devi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary and Ors., 2024 Latest Caselaw 342 SC
Case Details: Civil Appeal NO(S). 5539 OF 2012
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 342 SC
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
