Rajesh Kumar vs Upper Collectorf.And R.Raibareli And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5219 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajesh Kumar vs Upper Collectorf.And R.Raibareli And ... on 19 February, 2025

Author: Irshad Ali

Bench: Irshad Ali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


A.F.R.
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10932
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000956 of 1993
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- Upper Collectorf.And R.Raibareli And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Tewari,Nirmal Tiwari,Sharad Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.08.1992 - annexure 5 to the writ petition passed by Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Raebareli by means of which the lease granted to the petitioner in regard to khasra No.2032 area 1 bigha has been cancelled on three grounds:

a) The petitioner is not resident of village Sultanpur Kheda;

b) The petitioner is not landless agricultural labor;

c) The petitioner is not doing agriculture work on the land.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order dated 02.01.1993 - anneuxre 11 to the writ petition by means of which the application of the petitioner for recall has been rejected without considering the crucial aspect that the petitioner was deprived from putting his case before the Additional Collector, Finance & Revenue, Raebareli.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that vide order dated 16.01.1984, allotment of land situated at khasra No.2032 area 1 bigha, village Sultanpur Kheda, Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli under U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 was made in favour of the petitioner. At the time of allotment, there was a small construction on the said plot, in which agriculture related work was being done by the petitioner. The petitioner was issued an undated notice for cancellation of the lease by the District Government Counsel (Revenue), Raebareli, who cannot be said to be the 'person aggrieved' against the allotment of land to the petitioner as neither he was resident of village nor was eligible for allotment of lease.

5. Since, the notice was issued by District Government Counsel (Revenue), Raebareli, it can also not be said that the case was initiated by the Collector, Raebareli on his own motion under Section 15A of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 in which only two contingencies are provided-

i) the proceedings for cancellation can be initiated on the application given by person aggrieved; or

ii) the Collector on his own motion may proceed for cancellation of grant.

Further, the notice is also issued on a proforma which was actually being issued for cancellation of lease granted to incumbents under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951.

6. The petitioner engaged one counsel for responding the notice, but he did not act bona fidely and absented from hearing, as a result of which the lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 13.08.1992. The petitioner came to know about the said order on 27.09.1992 through Lekhpal and then application for recall was filed on 28.09.1992, which was rejected by the Additional Collector, Finance & Revenue, Raebareli vide order dated 02.01.1993. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that in the village in question there is no land-less person, who can be granted lease of the land. The counter affidavit to this effect has been filed by learned Standing Counsel, wherein there is no denial of the fact narrated in the supplementary affidavit.

8. His further submission is that the land can be allotted to the petitioner, once there is no eligible in the village in question and therefore, the petitioner was allotted the land on which one house was constructed, therefore, the allegation in the impugned order that land can be only allotted for agricultural purpose is misconceived.

9. To decide the controversy involved in the matter, Rule 14 & 15 of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 are being quoted below:

"14. Rights and liabilities of persons to whom land is granted - (1) The Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall execute a donation deed which may be in the form as in Appendix VII.

(2) The grantee of land in the areas to which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not apply shall acquire such right and liabilities as the Committee may confer under the law. The grantee shall be subject to the following conditions, restrictions and limitations:

(a) the grantee shall pay the rent to the Committee in such installments and on such dates as the Committee may specify,

(b) the grantee shall not be entitled to sublet or transfer the land; and

(c) the grantee shall not be entitled to use the land for any purpose other than for which it was granted.

15. Rules in regard to donations of properties other land shall be prescribed by the Committee itself. Such rules shall be framed, as far as may be, in accordance with the Scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna."

10. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon following judgments:

a) Matoley Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 1985 SCC Online All 980 : 1986 All LJ 645 : 1986 AWC 666:

"(8) In order to find whether a particular grant made in favour of a person under the provisions of Bhudan Yagna Act is regular or not, the provisions of the Act as they stood at the time of making of the grant have to be looed into. In the instant case the grant was made in the year 1956, prior to the amendment of S. 14 of the Act in the year 1975. Sec. 14 of the Act as it stood in the year 1956 enabled the Committee to settle the land obtained under the Act with "landless persons". It neither specified that such "landless persons" had also to be agricultural laborers nor that they had to be residents of the district in which the concerned land was located. Case of the petitioner in this regard is that in the year 1956 he had no land in his name and was, as such, a landless person and the settlement made on him was quite legal. The stand taken by the respondents in para 8 of the counter - affidavit is that the petitioner had obtained the grant by making misrepresentation and practicing fraud, that is, by claiming to be landless person when he in fact was not such a person residing in the same locality. Further in his objections the petitioner neither stated that he was a landless person nor did he produce any evidence in support of the claim made by him. This stand taken by the respondents in their counter -affidavit cannot be accepted. A perusal of the notice, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shows that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner not for the reason that he was a landless person but because he was said not to be a "landless agricultural laborer". There can be landless person without his being a landless agricultural laborer. Moreover, the order passed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) dated 13-9-1976 whereby he rejected petitioner's objection indicates that the petitioner did not contend before him that he was a landless person, but then, the Additional Collector proceeded to reject petitioner's objection merely on the ground that he did not submit any proof in support of his claim. The order does not indicate that there was any material before the Additional Collector (Ceiling) to indicate that the petitioner was, at the time, when the plot was settled with him, in fact not a landless person. For purposes of Sec. 14 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, that is in the year 1956 it was not at all material whether a landless person claiming settlement of plot was also an agricultural laborer. At that time the section also did not imply any such qualification that the landless person to whom the land could be granted must be resident of teh district in which the land was located. In this view of the matter it si evident that there was absolutely no material on the record whcih could lead any other to infer that the petitioner had either been guilty of fraud or of suppressing true facts. The two grounds mentioned in the show cause notice are also not relevant to the question whether the settlement made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1956 was or was not regular. The notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the patta executed in his favour in the year 1956 be not cancelled for the reasons stated therein as also the entire proceedings following thereon stand vitiated. The order D/- 13-9-1976 cancelling the patta executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1956 on the two grounds stated in the show cause notice is thus liable to be quashed."

b) Brij Kishore and another Vs. Atirikt Zila Adhikari, Kanpur and others; 1986 SCC Online All 382 : 1986 All LJ 1248 : 1986 RD 311:

(2) During the months of April and May, 1968 the petitioners obtained grants under S. 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act in respect of various plots situated in village Jahangirabad, Pargana Ghatampur, District Kanpur from Bhoodan Yagna Samiti. On 17-5-1972 Tahsildar Ghatampur submitted a report to Collector, Kanpur and on the basis thereof the Additional Collector, Kanpur issued notices to the petitioners under settlement obtained by them be not cancelled, on following grounds:

(i) As the petitioners did not reside in the village where the plots were situated. They had obtained the grants fraudulently and by misrepresenting facts.

(ii) As the petitioners did not fall in teh category of landless persons it was not proper to make the grants in their favour.

(iii) The grants had not been approved by the Government of U.P.

8. Coming now to the second ground of attack we find that S. 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act as it stood in the year 1968, enabled the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti to make grants of land vested in it to landless persons. It may be that at that time the petitioners were residing and carrying on their business at Kanpur but then it is not the case of the respondents that they possessed any land. The finding recorded that at the time of grant the petitioners were not landless in the sense that they did not own or possess any land at that time. In the case of Matoley V. State of U.P. reported in 1986 All LJ 645 in Division Bench of this Court took the view that S. 14 of the Act as it stood in the year 1956 enabled the Samiti to settle the land vesting in it with landless persons. The section neither specified that such landless persons had also to be agricultural labours nor did it provide that they had to be residents of the district in which the concerned land was located. We also find that S. 14 of the Act as it stood in 1968 did not provide that before a landless person could qualify for the grant, he must also be a poor labour. The said Division Bench also held that under S.15-A the question whether the grant made in favour of the granttee was regular or not, the provision of the Act as it stood at the time when the grant was made, has to be looked into. The requirement that the grantee should be a landless agricultural labour was not there in the year 1968. At that time any landless person irrespective of the vocation which he was following and the place where he was residing was eligible for the grant. The requirement that the grantee should be a landless agricultural labour was not there in the year 1968. At that time any landless person irrespective of the vocation which he was following and the place where he was residing was eligible for the grant. The requirement that in order to qualify for the grant of landless person should also be agricultural labourer as introduced in S. 14 of the Act for teh first time in the year 1975. Following the Division Bench decision in Matoley's case we are clearly of opinion that the Additional Collector was not justified in cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they did not qualify for it as poor agricultural labour residing in the village. There is nothing in the order of the Additional Collector to indicate that he ever doubted the petitioner's case that at the time of the grant they did not own or possess any land. Apart from saying that at the time of teh grant the petitioners were not poor agricultural labour residing in the village, the Additional Collector did not record any other finding from which any inference that while obtaining the grant the petitioners had suppressed facts or committed fraud could be drawn. Accordingly the finding of the Additional Collector that the petitioners were guilty of suppression of fact and commission of fraud is based on absolutely no material whatsoever."

c) Smt. Bhanumati Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and others; 2010 SCC Online All 418 : (2010) 82 ALR 424:

"5. It appears that later on, the District Magistrate on finding that the land in question is situated in village Jamo and the petitioner belonged to village Lalupur Dhabia, issued notice under section 15-A of the 1952 Act for cancellation of the lease. The reason, assigned in the notice was that the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner who belongs to other village and not of the village Jamo where the land is situated. The petitioner submitted her reply and stated that she was rightly allotted land in the year 1966 by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti as there was no statutory bar in the 1952 Act or rules framed thereunder. However, the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) by the impugned order dated 3.2.1984 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) has set aside the allotment.

7. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that in the year 1966 when the land was allotted to the petitioner by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, there was no statutory bar for the persons who reside in other villages. The only criteria was that the person concerned should be landless person. Attention of this Court has been invited to section 14 of the Act. Under Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of U.P. Act No.10 of 1975, notified on 21.1.1975, sub - section 3 was omitted and sub - section (4) was added. Clause (b) of sub-section (4)provides that the land situate in one village shall, as far as possible, be granted to persons residing in that very village.

9. In the case of Brij Kishore (Supra), the controversy with regard to alltoment of land is of the year 1968. It has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that in the year 1968, the Act as it stood, does not provide that the person concerned should be a poor labour and belong to the same village. Relevant portion from the judgment of Brij Kishore (Supra) is reproduced as under:

"In the case of Matoley V. State of U.P. reported in 1986 All LJ 645 in Division Bench of this Court took the view that S. 14 of the Act as it stood in the year 1956 enabled the Samiti to settle the land vesting in it with landless persons. The section neither specified that such landless persons had also to be agricultural labours nor did it provide that they had to be residents of the district in which the concerned land was located. We also find that S. 14 of the Act as it stood in 1968 did not provide that before a landless person could qualify for the grant, he must also be a poor labour. The said Division Bench also held that under S.15-A the question whether the grant made in favour of the granttee was regular or not, the provision of the Act as it stood at the time when the grant was made, has to be looked into. The requirement that the grantee should be a landless agricultural labour was not there in the year 1968. At that time any landless person irrespective of the vocation which he was following and the place where he was residing was eligible for the grant. The requirement that the grantee should be a landless agricultural labour was not there in the year 1968. At that time any landless person irrespective of the vocation which he was following and the place where he was residing was eligible for the grant. The requirement that in order to qualify for the grant of landless person should also be agricultural labourer as introduced in S. 14 of the Act for teh first time in the year 1975. Following the Division Bench decision in Matoley's case we are clearly of opinion that the Additional Collector was not justified in cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they did not qualify for it as poor agricultural labour residing in the village."

d) Massa Singh Vs. The Bhoodan Yagna Samiti Kheri and Another; Writ C No.1008402 of 1988 decided on 02.04.2024:

"8. Considering the fact of the present case specially the fact that the allotment in favour of petitioner was made in the year 1958, on which point of time the condition that a person should be resident of the village was not in existence and consequently it cannot be said that the patta was granted to the petitioner in violation of Section 14(4)(b) of the Act, 1952. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by this Court in the case of Smt. Bhanumati Vs. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad (Supra) and accordingly this Court also finds that the judgment is applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case. No other ground has been stated in the impugned order cancelling the patta."

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. The application of the petitioner was not cancelled on the ground that he was landless. The application was cancelled on the ground that he does not belong to the same village and there is no material evidence produced by anyone that the petitioner is not a landless person, therefore, the finding returned on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the same village is erroneous in nature. The petitioner was allotted the land on the ground that no-one was present in the village, who were landless. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted the land, wherein a constructed house was present, therefore, the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Matoley Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (Supra) is fully applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

12. In the case of Brij Kishore and another (Supra), during the months of April and May, 1968 the petitioners obtained grants under S. 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act in respect of various plots situated in village Jahangirabad, Pargana Ghatampur, District Kanpur from Bhoodan Yagna Samiti. On 17-5-1972 Tahsildar Ghatampur submitted a report to Collector, Kanpur and on the basis thereof the Additional Collector, Kanpur issued notices to the petitioners under settlement obtained by them be not cancelled, on following grounds:

(i) As the petitioners did not reside in the village where the plots were situated. They had obtained the grants fraudulently and by misrepresenting facts.

(ii) As the petitioners did not fall in teh category of landless persons it was not proper to make the grants in their favour.

(iii) The grants had not been approved by the Government of U.P.

In the case of petitioner, the grant of patta was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner belongs to other village. There is no material to establish that in the village in question there was a landless person to whom the patta is to be allotted. In absence of any person belonging to landless category, the petitioner being landless person, was granted lease in his favour. Therefore, the ground of rejection is erroneous in nature and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

13. In the case of Smt. Bhanumati (Supra), it appears that later on, the District Magistrate on finding that the land in question is situated in village Jamo and the petitioner belonged to village Lalupur Dhabia, issued notice under section 15-A of the 1952 Act for cancellation of the lease. The reason, assigned in the notice was that the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner who belongs to other village and not of the village Jamo where the land is situated. The petitioner submitted her reply and stated that she was rightly allotted land in the year 1966 by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti as there was no statutory bar in the 1952 Act or rules framed thereunder. However, the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) by the impugned order dated 3.2.1984 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) has set aside the allotment.

14. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that in the year 1966 when the land was allotted to the petitioner by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, there was no statutory bar for the persons who reside in other villages.

15. In the present case, there is no finding returned imposing the bar that land in question will not be allotted to the person to other village, was not taken into consideration. The petitioner without playing fraud or misrepresentation of fact was allotted the land being no-one coming under the category of landless in the village in question, therefore, no mistake has been committed in allotment of land to the petitioner. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment rendered hereinabove is fully applicable to the case of the petitioner.

16. Under Section 15A of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 only two contingencies are defined for cancelling of land allotted to the allottee - i) the proceedings for cancellation can be initiated on the application given by person aggrieved; ii) the Collector on his own motion may proceed for cancellation of grant.

17. In the present case, the application was not given by the aggrieved person or the Collector has not initiated the proceeding on his own motion for cancellation of grant fo lease, therefore, the cancellation of lease of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions contained under Section 15A of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952.

18. Rule 14 of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 defines Rights and liabilities of persons to whom land is granted - (1) The Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall execute a donation deed which may be in the form as in Appendix VII.

(2) The grantee of land in the areas to which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not apply shall acquire such right and liabilities as the Committee may confer under the law. The grantee shall be subject to the following conditions, restrictions and limitations:

(a) the grantee shall pay the rent to the Committee in such installments and on such dates as the Committee may specify,

(b) the grantee shall not be entitled to sublet or transfer the land; and

(c) the grantee shall not be entitled to use the land for any purpose other than for which it was granted.

19. The petitioner has not acted contrary to the provisions of Rule 14 of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952. The land was allotted to the petitioner in accordance with law, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, the impugned orders cancelling the lease of the petitioner are erroneous in nature and are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

20. The only objection of learned Additional CSC for respondent - State is that under U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 the purpose of allotment of land is to land-less person, which can be used for agricultural purposes. The ground of rejection vide impugned order has been made that the petitioner does not belong to the village in question and belongs to other village. In this regard, a supplementary affidavit has been filed, wherein specific averment has been made that no person of the category for allotment was available in the same village, therefore, the petitioner was allotted the land, wherein one house was constructed. Statement of fact in this regard has been made in paragraph 11 & 12 of the writ petition, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

21. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judgments placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 13.08.1992 - annexure 5 and 02.01.1993 - annexure 11 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed.

22. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

23. No order, as to costs.

Order Date :- 19.02.2025

Adarsh K Singh