SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T Ravi Kumar, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2012
Decided On : 16-05-2024
fraud - Land Allotment - UPZALR Act 122-C(6), Section 132, Section 143, Section 50-B(4) - The court discussed the irregularity in land allotment under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act and the power of the Collector to cancel such allotment. It also highlighted the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings and the need for exercising statutory authority within a reasonable period. The court emphasized the importance of foundational facts in cases of fraud and the impact on the rights of the affected parties.
Fact of the Case:
The authorities initiated proceedings to cancel land allotment after 13 years based on a report of irregularity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initiation of proceedings for cancellation of allotment after 13 years was unreasonable and lacked foundational facts of fraud against the allottees.
Issues: Validity of the initiation of proceedings for cancellation of land allotment, impact of fraud on the proceedings, and the rights of the affected parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for exercising statutory authority within a reasonable period and the importance of foundational facts in cases of fraud.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the injustice of unsettling the residential buildings of poor villagers.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioners or petitioners’) challenging the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Revision No.68 of 2008-09 came to be dismissed and said order came to be upheld for the reason that the revision petition is not maintainable and consequently the order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector holding that proceedings for cancellation of the patta could be started at any time came to be upheld.
2. By our order dated 13.03.2024, we had made it clear that since none had appeared on behalf of the appellants (writ petitioners) no further adjournment would be granted and in the interest of justice one last opportunity came to be extended to the writ petitioners. However, even today when the matter is called in the second round none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Hence, we have proceeded to examine the case on merits by considering the pleas advanced in the appeal, grounds urged therein and the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents’ counsel.
3. Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
4. In the year 1969-70, the khasra plot No.185 in Rampur Kedhar Village, UP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion of the said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant Collector and subsequently different plots of land in said survey number came to be allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners under Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereafter referred to as ‘UPZALR Act’ for short).
5. After 13 years, the Secretary/Lekhpal of Bhumi Prabandhank Samiti, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar opining thereunder that plot No.185 had been originally designated as Panchayat Ghar and classified under Section 132 of UPZALR Act and accordingly recorded in the revenue records, which had been unlawfully allotted for residential use. Hence, he proposed for cancellation of the allotments made and to take possession of the land from all the allottees including writ petitioners. The Tehsildar in turn forwarded a proposal to the District Magistrate for cancellation of the allotment vide communication dated 18.06.2007. This, resulted in show cause notices dated 05.07.2007 being issued to the writ petitioners and same was duly replied by them by filing objections on 04.10.2007. An application came to be filed by the petitioners to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, since the proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment contending inter alia that within a period of 3 years the proceedings ought to have been initiated. The Additional Collector by order dated 07.02.2008 was of the view that action initiated being suo moto, no limitation has been provided under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act; that during the consolidation proceedings the land had been specified “Panchayat Ghar” and it was covered under Section 132(6) of the UPZALR Act; the allotment of land being irregular and no time limit having been fixed for cancellation of allotment made under Section 122-C(6). Hence, he arrived at a conclusion that there is no limitation fixed under the Act and proceeded to reject the application filed.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petition came to be filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be entertained on merits and dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two (2) orders, the writ petitioners challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 which came to be dismissed on two grounds namely the revision petition filed was not maintainable in the teeth of Section 122-C(7); and, on the ground that impugned order dated 07.02
Additional Commssioner, Revenue and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another
State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited
Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy
The exercise of statutory authority must be within a reasonable period, and fraud vitiates all proceedings.
The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.
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 court established that powers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delays invalidate such actions.
Cancellation of land leases must adhere to statutory limitation periods; proceedings initiated beyond these limits are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.
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.
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 ....
A landless person can be granted land under the U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act irrespective of their residency in the village where the land is located, as long as there are no eligible landless persons in th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.