Daya Ram Objection Filed vs State Of U.P.Through Collector ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12352 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Daya Ram Objection Filed vs State Of U.P.Through Collector ... on 11 November, 2025

Author: Irshad Ali

Bench: Irshad Ali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72179
 

 
 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 LUCKNOW A.F.R.
 
 
 
WRIT - C No. - 1001660 of 2003   
 
   Daya Ram Objection Filed    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P.Through Collector Sitapur.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Vimal Kishore Verma   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Dilip Pandey, Kapil Kumar Srivastava, R.N.Gupta   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 4
 
   
 
 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.      

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing he impugned judgment and order dated 16.4.2003, passed by opposite party No.2, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No.405 of 1996-97 under Section 333-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, contained at Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, and impugned order dated 24.1.1997 passed by opposite party No.3, Appar Collector, Sitapur in Case No.31/36/48/104 Under Section - 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, contained at Annexure No.8 to the writ petition.

(ii) issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit, proper and just in the circumstances of the case and;

(iii) ..."

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a landless person belonging to backward caste and residing in Village Medhia, Mohammadpur Kadeem, where the disputed land situates. The allotment of disputed land Gata No.183/ 0.266 hectare has been made in the aforesaid village after passing the resolution by respondent No.5 and approval was also made by Sub Divisional Officer, Mahmoodabad on 24.7.1989 in favour of petitioner and 24 other persons.

4. The allotment of agricultural land Gata No.183 has been made in favour of petitioner alongwith 24 other persons on the same day by same and single resolution of respondent No.5. Thereafter, the petitioner is in possession over the land and doing cultivation on the basis of allotment done in his favour. The respondent No.4 filed a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner, in July 1989. The petitioner filed his objection regarding the aforesaid application of respondent No.4.

5. The father of respondent No.4 namely Baldeo having 1.218 hectare agricultural land situated in the same village and respondent No.4 is the only son of Baldeo and residing with his father. Father of the respondent No.4 is having other agricultural land Gata No.182/ 0.044 hectare, therefore, the claim setup by the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 is not the landless person.

6. The respondent No.3 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 24.1.1997. During the pendency of the case under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the respondent No.4 filed Case No.51/94/122/138/151 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act before the Deputy Collector, Mahmoodabad, in which the petitioner filed his written statement in the said suit on 31.5.1995, whereby the Deputy Collector passed the order ex-parte in ex-parte proceeding on 23.4.1999 and the suit was decreed. Against the order of the Deputy Collector dated 23.4.1999, the petitioner moved a restoration application for setting aside the aforesaid order which was rejected on 28.5.1999 and the next date was fixed as 31.5.1999 for final argument/ orders and closed the opportunity of hearing and evidence to the petitioner.

7. The Deputy Collector passed ex-parte judgment and decree dated 2.6.1999 in the suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner filed Appeal No.397/1998-99 under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act before the respondent No.2 which was admitted and operation of the judgment was stayed. Against the cancellation of allotment of land of the petitioner, he filed Revision No.405/1996-97 before the respondent No.2 against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1997, passed by the respondent No.3.

8. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (respondent No.2) dismissed the revision on the ground that the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act decreed on 2.6.1999 in favour of the respondent No.4.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that suit was decreed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by ex-parte decree passed in favour of respondent No.4, which was not considered by the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 16.4.2003. Next submission is that the order dated 16.4.2003 is ex-parte and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned order do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid order.

11. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.

12. In the present case, records were summoned to peruse the notice issued inviting applications for allotment of land. In pursuance to the order of this Court, record has been produced today in Court. On perusal of notice issued, it is evident that date of notice for holding the meeting has been given as 30.6.1989. 'Zero' was cut down in the aforesaid date and before the number '3', '2' has been incorporated. On perusal of the notice on record, it is evident that notice was issued on 26.6.1989 and the date mentioned for holding meeting was 23.6.1989, which is not possible as it is prior to the date of issuance of notice. In case cutting on the date is taken into consideration that it is 30.6.1989 even then the period of notice as provided under Section 173 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 provides that from the date of issuance of notice, seven days must be cleared.

13. For ready reference Section 173of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 is quoted as under :-

"[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 circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plot, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made.]"

14. On perusal of the record, it is evident that notice was not issued seven days prior to the date of meeting even if it is assumed that the date is 30.6.1989. On the date mentioned in the notice after cutting of zero, '2' was added, even then prior to the date of issuance of notice, the date cannot be assumed to be 23.6.1989. On the reasons referred hereinabove, the impugned order do not require any interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

15. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed.

16. The record produced today is returned to the learned Standing Counsel.

(Irshad Ali,J.)

November 11, 2025

Gautam