Allahabad High Court
Tota Ram & Others vs The Board Of Revenue U.P. At ... on 10 August, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. 06
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 5008 OF 2007.
Tota Ram and others
Vs.
The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others.
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.
Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the counter affidavits filed by Smt. Chandrawati Devi, Chairperson on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed in revision under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in relation to the lease said to have been granted by the Land Management Committee in favour of the petitioners and approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the year 1997.
Sri Verma submits that there is no finding individually, in respect of the four petitioners before this Court declaring, that their allotment was illegal nor any reasons have been given for the same. He submits that by a general declaration all the leases that were made on that day, which were 90 in number, have been cancelled by one stroke of pen. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order reflects non application of mind so far as the petitioners are concerned.
The counter affidavits have come with the allegations that irregularities were committed on a large scale and that the proceedings were carried out without following the procedure prescribed in law. The allotment and approval, therefore, both were invalid and hence the petitioners have no claim. The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha indicate the alleged irregularities. The basis of the averments contain in the counter affidavits is the report of the Tahsildar and the findings recorded in the impugned order.
Apart from that it has also been pointed out that the petitioner nos. 1 & 4 had filed their objections and a perusal of the same would also indicate that the irregularities are admitted. The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 do not appear to have filed any objection. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, therefore, contends that in view of the own admission of the petitioners no. 1 and 4 in relation to the irregularities, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders and even otherwise if the petitioners are eligible, they will be considered in case fresh allotments are made.
An allotment has to be made by following the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. Rule 173 of the said Rules is as follows:
"173. Sections 195, 197 and 198: Admission to land. - Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circule of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situated at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made."
This Court in a couple of decisions has held that non compliance of the said Rule renders the allotment invalid. The said decisions are 2004 (2) RD 178 (Shobha Ram Vs. State of U.P.) and (2002) 2 SAC 334 (Moinuddin Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad).
In the instant case, the objections have been filed by the petitioner nos. 1 & 4 only, a copy whereof has been filed with the counter affidavit of the Pradhan. Paragraph 3 of the said objection reads as under:
"3- ;g fd ekSds ij ys[kiky }kjk tks uEcj vkoafV;ks dks fn;s x;s Fks oks uEcj o jdok vkoafV;ks ds lkeus bUnzkt ugh fd;s x;s u i=koyh ij jdok fy[kk x;k Fkk ekSf[kd :i ls jdok uECkj Ckrk;s x;k FkkA"
A perusal of the said statement made on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, makes it clear that neither the plot numbers nor the exact land, which was to be allotted, was ever made known as per Rule 173 aforesaid, and the villagers came to know about the same through oral pronouncements at the time of the alleged allotment.
This admission itself indicates non compliance of the procedure apart from the irregularities that have been recorded in the impugned orders. Accordingly, in view of these findings recorded and in view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
In case, the petitioners are eligible, they shall be considered for allotment as and when any fresh allotment is proceeded with in accordance with law.
Dt. 10.08.2011
Akv
