Allahabad High Court
Suraj Bhan vs Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur ... on 19 August, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47001 of 2011
Petitioner :- Suraj Bhan
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur Division And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Yogesh Kumar Singh,K.R. Sirohi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner claims allotment over part of plot no. 230 of village Dokpura. The said allotment along with other allotments became subject matter of scrutiny of a complaint filed by the then Gaon Sabha in the year 1993. The said allotment proceedings were scrutinized under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and vide order dated 12th June, 1996, the allotments were upheld including the allotment of the petitioner. Needless to mention that this writ petition is confined only to the allotment in favour of the petitioner and not in relation to any other allotment made under the said order.
A perusal of the said order dated 12th June, 1996 demonstrates that the very same plot number and the very same nature of objection has been raised praying for cancellation, whereupon a finding came to be recorded that the conversion of the land was permitted even prior to the allotment, vide order dated 15.12.1985, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and thereafter the allotment was made to the petitioner on 20.12.1986. It was found that the allotment was valid and accordingly the complaint for cancellation of the allotment was rejected.
The present proceedings have been initiated suo motu by the Collector afresh on a report having been called for in this regard that the land which came to be allotted to the petitioner was recorded as 'Dhab' which is a low lying land, and therefore, it falls within the definition of Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, hence could not have been subject matter of allotment to the petitioner. The other plots also, which were subject matter of dispute, were again inquired into and it was found that the alleged plots were also public utility land.
This petition is, however, concerned only with regard to plot no. 230 relating to the petitioner. The Collector in these fresh proceedings after noticing the earlier order dated 20.12.1996 concluded that the same would not give any protection as neither the parties are the same nor the plots were the same. He has further concluded that the land being in the nature of public utility land, the allotments were invalid and hence the allotments deserve to be cancelled. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 29th July, 2009, the petitioner preferred a revision which has also been dismissed. Hence this writ petition.
Sri Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned orders proceed on erroneous assumptions of fact and law and it incorrectly ignores the earlier findings recorded in the order dated 12.06.1996, and therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and deserve to be set aside. In essence, he submits that it reflects total non-application of mind even though the allotment of the petitioner stands on a different footing as against those who have claimed allotment over the other land in the same proceedings. The case of the petitioner being distinguishable, the Collector has committed an error in cancelling the allotment and the revising authority having failed to correct the said material irregularity, the orders impugned be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submit that these pure questions arise out of facts already available on record, and therefore, it is not necessary to file any counter affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally at this stage itself. They contend that the land being public utility land, the findings recorded by the Collector and affirmed in revision do not deserve any inteference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Sri Sirohi in rejoinder further submits that not only the order is perverse but is also not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Farid Ahmad & others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others reported in 1978 RD 273.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it is evident that the petitioner's allotment was also subject matter of scrutiny when the order dated 12th June, 1996 was passed. He was also arrayed as opposite party no. 6 in the said proceedings. The finding recorded by the Collector that the parties were not the same is, therefore, an erroneous approach as the petitioner was very much a party to the said proceedings.
So far as, the identity of the land is concerned, the same is also not in dispute, and therefore, the order dated 12th June, 1996 did pertain to the allotment of the petitioner. On this score also the order of the Collector is untenable.
The issue relating to the nature of land is also discussed in the order dated 12th June, 1996 where it has been categorically recorded that there was an order dated 15th December, 1985 permitting conversion of the land and the allotment admittedly had been made on 20.12.1986 thereafter. This aspect has also been completely ignored by the Collector while passing the order dated 29th July, 2009.
Thus, on all three scores, the order is perverse as it ignores relevant material, and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and interfered with under Article 226 of the constitution of India as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Nanha and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Kanpur and others reported in 1975 AWC 1.
Accordingly, the order dated 29th July, 2009 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The revising authority also committed the same error, and therefore, the order dated 19.04.2011 also cannot be sustained for the same reasons and the same is also quashed.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Collector to decide the matter afresh after taking into account all these facts in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 19.8.2011
Akv
