Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Kamal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Gajraj and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 2627-2628 OF 2012 With Civil Appeal No(s). 2604-2605 OF 2012, Civil Appeal No(s). 6486-6487 OF 2012
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were allotted land under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but a stranger challenged the allotment due to delay in approval. The High Court set aside the allotment, remitting it back to the authority.Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision was overturned as there was no error in the decision-making process, and delay in approval did not invalidate proceedings.Issues:
Delay in granting approval for land allotments under Rule 176(4) of the Rules.Ratio Decidendi:
Non-compliance with time frames for approval does not invalidate proceedings if no error is found in decision-making.Final Decision:
The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and review order.JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12th August, 2010 followed with the Order dismissing the review petition dated 12th October, 2011.
2. The brief facts of the case which manifest from the record are that the present appellants are the applicants to whom land was allotted after going through the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter being referred to as “the Act”) on the recommendations made by the Land Management Committee of Village Phaleda in its meeting held on 20th July, 1996. The allotment was finally confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurja vide its acceptance dated 6th April, 1997 which came to be affirmed on the dismissal of a revision petition filed at the instance of one of the complainants, who although had no locus standi and was not an allottee by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in exercise of power under Section 333 of the Act by order dated 31st March, 2008.
3. That order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut came to be set aside by the High Court on a writ petition filed by a stranger to the proceedings, Gajraj, who was the original complainant, questioning the allotment made to the appellants on the premise that under Rule 176(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952(hereinafter being referred to as “the Rules”), the decision was to be taken by the competent authority on the recommendations made by the Land Management Committee within one week of its receipt from the Chairman and eight months had been consumed by the authority for granting final approval which was in violation of Rule 176(4) of the Rules.
4. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 31st March 2008, and the Additional Collector(Finance & Revenue) dated 30th September, 2006, the High Court remitted the matter back to the authority to examine the same afresh in accordance with law by Order dated 12th August, 2010 which is the subject matter in appeals before us.
5. The relevant extract of the allotments of piece of land made on the recommendations of the Land Management Committee of Village Phaleda in its meeting held on 20th July, 1996 is as under:
| ……. Upon hearing the details of the above land, the Land Management Committee has also decided, to the effect that, those persons who will avail allotment in Village Phaleda Bangar, will be allotted land area, admeasuring 0.506 hectares, while those who avail allotments in Village Sultanpur Phaleda Bangar, will be accordingly allotted land area, admeasuring 0.253 hectares. Then the Lekhpal, has been asked, to the effect that, he ought to accordingly affect allotments of lands standing mentioned, in the contents of the concerned list of eligible candidates, which as a matter of fact, has been prepared by the Village Pradhan and members of the Land Management Committee. This list of all eligible persons, has been read-over, before this Land Management Committee, whereupon some deliberation has taken place in the said behalf and finally it had been passed, through consensus voice, with this observation that, the said list has been duly prepared, in a true and correct manner, because members belonging to the Schedule Caste, remaining in possession of agricultural land area, admeasuring less than 31/8 acres, are also included, in the said list. Agricultural allotments, have been affected, in the following manner:. |
| S.No. | Name, Parentage and address of allottee | Caste | Khasra No. | Area in Hectares | Land revenue in Rs. | Details | ||
| 1 | 2 |
| ||||||
Delay in granting approval does not invalidate land allotment proceedings if no error is found in decision-making.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and have no legal effect, emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional validity in admin....
The main legal point established is that the power to cancel land allotment must be exercised within a reasonable time, and khatedari rights cannot be withdrawn after their conferment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allotments obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can be cancelled without limitation, and such allotments do not confer any title over the pr....
Compliance with Rule 95A of the Settlement Rules before using or disposing of grazing grounds, and the power of the Deputy Commissioner to recommend denotification of VGR land.
The court established that higher authorities cannot exercise statutory powers of lower authorities, and actions against interim orders are illegal.
Point of law: 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 ....
The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, finding no violations of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules and affirming the finality of prior allotments.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
