Allahabad High Court
Satya Pal vs Collector And Others on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46560 of 1999
Petitioner :- Satya Pal
Respondent :- Collector And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.S. Rajput,Namit Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Chandra
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed assailing the order dated 16.04.1999 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 09.07.1999 passed by the respondent no. 1.
The case, in nutshell, is that the proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated by the Gaon Sabha after issuing notice in Form 49-Ka to the petitioner. An objection was filed by the petitioner on 26.11.1990. The respondent no. 2 after considering the case of the petitioner dropped the proceedings under Section 122-B vide order dated 31.07.1996 and the notice in Form 49-Ka was discharged. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was preferred before the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad by Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. The said revision was partly allowed and the matter was remitted to respondent no. 2 on 08.07.1997. Post-remand the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 16.04.1999 held the petitioner to be in illegal occupation and directed for his eviction. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 wherein ground was taken that the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act should be extended to petitioner. The respondent no. 1 vide judgment dated 09.07.1999 upheld the order passed by the respondent no. 2 and dismissed the revision.
The small issue before the Court is whether the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) can be extended to the petitioner or not.
From perusal of the record and the argument of petitioner's counsel, it is clear that petitioner does not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and the benefit as granted under the relevant provision cannot be extended to the petitioner. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward class and Section 122-B (4-F) provides for as under;
"Section 122-B (4-F): Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before [May 13, 2007] and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and [he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in that land.]"
Moreover, the land in question was taken over by Nagar Nigam in the year 1972 and the claim of the petitioner before the authorities as well as this Court is that he is in occupation of the land in question since the year 1972 and has been cultivating the same. As the petitioner does not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, the benefit of Section Section 122-B (4-F) cannot be extended to him as after the amendment made under Section 210 on 28.01.1977 only the benefit over the land which is being cultivated by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe cannot be taken over and as case of the petitioner is not that he is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, no benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) can be extended to him.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that respondent no. 1 had rightly rejected the revision which needs no interference by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition fails and dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Shekhar
