Judgment

OZA, J. :- These appeals have been filed by the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Kanpur against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad delivered in Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 149/76. 151/76 and 172/76. By the impugned order the High Court quashed the order passed by Additional Collector, Kanpur dated 1-1-1976 quashing the Pattas granted in favour of the respondent.

2. In the month of April and May, 1968 the petitioner before the High Court i.e. present respondent obtained grant under S. 14 of the U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act in respect of various plots of land situated in Village Jahangirabad Paragana Ghatampur, District Kanpur from Bhoodan Yagna Samiti on 17-5-1972. Tehsildar Ghatampur submitted a report to Collector, Kanpur and on the basis thereof the Additional Collector, Kanpur issued notices to these respondents under Sections of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act requiring them to show as to why the 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 the 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."

After considering the objections filed by the respondents, the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the order of the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti settling the land could not be justified as it could only be made in favour of poor landless agricultural labourers and not in favour of persons like the respondents who were quite well off and who reside in the city of Kanpur, owned property there and carried on business. In his opinion such persons did not fall in the category of landless persons as contemplated under the Act and the grants made in their favour in the year 1968 were irregular and liable to be set aside and on the basis of these reasons the Additional Collector by his order dated 1-1-76 quashed all the grants made in favour of the three respondents against which the writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Allahabad and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the order passed by the Additional Collector and maintained the grants in favour of the respondents and against this order of the High Court by grant of leave the present appeal is before us.

3. Before the High Court two questions were raised. First was about the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector as under the Act the duties were cast on the Collector to enquire into these matters and therefore on that ground it was contended before the High Court that Additional Collector has no jurisdiction. The other ground which was raised before the High Court was that the view taken by the Additional Collector is not in accordance with law. So far as the first ground is concerned even the High Court held against the respondents and before us learned counsel for parties conceded that to that part of the High Court Judgment there is no challenge and this now is not in dispute that the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and therefore on that ground it is not necessary for us to dilate any more.

4. We are therefore mainly concerned with as to whether the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in favour of the respondents was in accordance with law or which was not in accordance with law and therefore Additional Collector was right in setting aside those allotments.

4-A. As regards the second question, the facts in this case are not in dispute. The respondents are businessmen residing in Kanpur. It is not in dispute that they have their trade in Kanpur and have properties also and are income-tax payers. It is also not in dispute that they are not agriculturists and they had at the time of allotment nothing to do with agriculture. Apart from it their source of livelihood was not agriculture at all