Murali vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6564 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Murali vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And 3 Others on 27 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43935
 
Reserved on 3.3.2025
 
Delivered on 27.3.2025
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 48011 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Murali
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Alld. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.S.P. Singh,Mrs. Sushma Devi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Smt. Saraswati Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Smt. Sushma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Saraswati Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot No. 423 area 0.066 air situated in Village Baijapur, Pargana Mohammadabad, Tehsil -Sadar, District Mau. Petitioner claimed that he is in possession of the plot in question since before 30.6.1975 being landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste community, as such, is entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Lekhpal of the area submitted his report on 26.2.1994 to the effect that lease of the plot in question has been granted in favour of respondent no.4-Katawaru on 7.8.1994 which was also approved by the authorities on 4.7.1995. Petitioner accordingly applied for cancellation of the lease executed in favour of respondent no.4. Additional Collector Mau vide order dated 17.10.2006 cancelled the lease executed in favour of respondent no.4. Respondent no.4/ Katawaru filed a revision before Commissioner which was registered as revision No. 167/M under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Azamgarh Division Azamgarh vide order dated 20.9.2012 setting aside the order dated 17.10.2006 and affirmed the allotment dated 4.7.1995 made in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru. Petitioner challenged the order dated 20.9.2012 before the Board of Revenue which was initially entertained but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the revision filed by petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2014. Hence this writ petition filed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) To Issue a writ in the nature and direction of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 31.3.2014 and 20.9.2012 passed by O.P. No. 1 and 2 (Annexure Nos. 3 and 80 respectively.

(ii) To pass any other and further suitable order as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and to secure the ends of justice."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 8.9.2014 and granted interim protection.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 8.9.2014, parties have exchanged their affidavit.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner belong to Schedule Caste community and are landless agricultural labourer, as such, Naib Tehsildar submitted his report dated 11.12.1995 which was approved by Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 18.2.1996 for grant of benefit to the petitioner -Murali as provided under Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. She submitted that initially, petitioner- Murali and after his death substituted petitioners are in possession of the disputed plot No. 423, as such, the agriculture lease executed in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru was rightly cancelled by the Additional Collector. She submitted that order of the Additional Collector cancelling the agriculture lease of respondent no.4 has been set aside in arbitrary manner by the Additional Commissioner. She submitted that the plot in question was not vacant on the date of execution of agriculture lease, as such, there was no occasion to grant lease in favour of respondent no.4. She further submitted that revision filed by petitioner before the Board of Revenue has been dismissed without considering the case as set up in revision. She further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (5) Supreme Court Cases 521 Manorey alias Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Others as well as judgement of this Court reported in 2012 (117) RD 19 Phool Das Vs. Additional Collector (F &R) Saharanpur and Others in order to demonstrate that person of Scheduled Caste community will be entitled to benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act if they have been found in possession before relevant date.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that petitioner- Murali was never in possession of the plot in question. She further submitted that plot in question was recorded as naveen parti in the revenue record at the time of execution of agriculture lease in favour of respondent no.4. She further submitted that Gaon Sabha made proposal on 7.8.1994 for grant of agriculture lease in favour of respondent no.4 which was approved on 4.7.1995 according to the provisions contained under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. She further submitted that one- Lachhu initiated a proceeding for cancellation of lease executed in favour of one-Arbind in respect to the same proposal dated 7.8.1994/ approval dated 4.7.1995 on the ground that proposal/ approval was not made according to the provisions of the Act/ Rules, as such, the same is liable to be cancelled. She submitted that Collector Mau vide order dated 11.2.2005 rejected the application filed under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act recording finding of fact that proper procedure for grant of agriculture lease was followed while making the proposal dated 7.8.1994 as well as approval dated 4.7.1995. She submitted that in respect to the agriculture lease executed in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru, the proceeding for cancellation was initiated and Additional Collector has cancelled the petitioner's lease in illegal and arbitrary manner. She submitted that revision filed by respondent no.4- Katwaru, before Commissioner was allowed setting aside the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by Additional Collector and agriculture lease executed in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru was maintained. She submitted that petitioner is not in possession of the disputed plot rather respondent no.4 now his legal heirs are in possession since 14.8.1996. She submitted that in view of the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by Collector Mau upholding the proposal/ approval dated 7.8.1994/ 4.7.1995 in respect to agriculture lease of one- Arbind as well as the revisional order dated 20.9.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner in the instant matter, the agriculture lease executed in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru cannot be cancelled and the claim of the petitioner for benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act cannot be entertained. She submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act initiated by petitioner for cancellation of agriculture lease of respondent no.4 was allowed by Additional Collector but in revision Additional Commissioner has set aside the order of Additional Collector and maintained the agriculture lease of respondent no.4. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner against the order of Additional Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2014.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will be relevant for perusal which are as under:-

"Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act- (4)[ The [Collector] may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any."

"Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act- [(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 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.

Explanation. - The expression "agricultural labourer" shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 198."

10. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner dated 20.9.2012 will also be relevant which is as under:-

"???????? ??? ?????? (???????), ?????? ?????, ???????

??????? ?????? 167/??

???????? ???? 333 ??????????

????-???????, ?????-???????????,

?????-???, ????- ???

?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????

??????

????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? 423 ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? 07-08-1994 ???????? ?????? 04-07-1995 ?? ??????? ??????????, ?? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????, ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 11-02-2005 ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? 07-08-1994 ?? ???, ????? ???????? ?????? 04-07-1995 ?? ?? ?? ???? ??, ?? ?????? 18-02-1996 ?? ???????? ???? 122??(4??) ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? 04-07-1995 ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???

????

??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 17-10-2006 ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? 04-07-1995 ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?????

???????- 20-09-2012 ?? ???

20/09/12

??? ?????? (???????),

?????? ?????, ???????"

11. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner dated 20.9.2012 as quoted above fully demonstrate that there was no illegality in the proposal/ approval dated 7.8.1994/ 4.7.1995 in respect to the execution of agriculture lease in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru.

12. The finding of fact has also been recorded by Additional Commissioner to the effect that in view of the proposal/ approval of agriculture lease dated 7.8.1994/ 4.7.1995, the authorities had no jurisdiction to pass another order dated 18.2.1996 for the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in favour of petitioner.

13. The judgement of Additional Commissioner was further considered by Board of Revenue while deciding the revision filed by petitioner recording finding of fact that in spite of the agriculture lease executed on 4.7.1995 in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru, a collusive report/ order dated 8.2.1996 was manipulated by petitioner concealing the fact that agriculture lease had already been executed in favour of respondent no.4- Katwaru. The Board of Revenue has also recorded the finding of fact that same proposal/ approval dated 7.8.1994/ 4.7.1995 has been approved by the Court in another proceeding in respect to agriculture lease of another lease holder, as such, the same proposal/ approval of agriculture lease dated 7.8.1994/ 4.7.1995 cannot be cancelled on the ground of irregularity in the execution of agriculture lease.

14. It is also material to mention that petitioner as well as respondent no.4 both belong to Scheduled Caste community and land in dispute was recorded as navin parti at the time of execution of agriculture lease in favour of respondent no.4, as such, agriculture lease executed in favour of respondent no.4 should be approved in the facts and circumstances of this case and no right will accrue to petitioners on the basis of subsequent report/ order passed under Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

15. The case law supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner for the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will not be applicable in the instant matter as agriculture lease in respect to the same plot in question has already been executed in favour of respondent no.4 after following the due procedure of law as provided under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules framed thereunder.

16.The copy of the supplementary dated 21.3.2025 supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner along with copy of case law cannot be taken into consideration as the judgement has already been reserved in the matter on 3.3.2025.

17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the finding recorded by Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue, there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders dated 31.3.2014 and 20.9.2012.

18. The writ petition is dismissed and order dated 20.9.2012 passed by respondent no.2/ Additional Commissioner (Administration) Azamgarh Division Azamgarh is maintained. The revenue entry of the plot in question shall be corrected accordingly.

19. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 27.3.2025

Vandana Y.