Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mehrotra, J.
BABULAL - Appellant
Versus
G.S.HASHMI - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1026 Of 1956
Decided On : 08/09/1957
U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS RULES - RULE 115-C - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS - REPORT BY LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY TO CASES INVOLVING DISPUTED TITLE OR PATTA HOLDERS - VALIDITY OF RULE 115 IN LIGHT OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be a co-sharer in a village, challenged the proceedings initiated against him under Rule 115-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The proceedings were initiated based on a complaint by certain villagers alleging encroachment on Gaon Samaj land. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction as they were not initiated on a report by the Land Management Committee, the land in dispute was his khudkasht and not vested in the Gaon Samaj, and Rule 115 was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings under Rule 115-C were not without jurisdiction as the report to the Collector, though not in the prescribed form, was made by members of the Land Management Committee. The court also held that the land in dispute, having been accepted by the petitioner under a patta from the Land Management Committee, could not be said to be his khudkasht and not vested in the Gaon Samaj. The court further held that Rule 115 was not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution as it provided a summary remedy for the removal of encroachment or repair of damage to Gaon Samaj land, while Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provided for a regular suit for ejectment or recovery of possession. However, the court held that Rule 115-C did not apply to cases where the title of the Gaon Samaj itself was disputed or where a person was in possession of the land under a patta, even if the patta was later declared illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings under Rule 115-C were without jurisdiction due to the absence of a report by the Land Management Committee. 2. Whether the land in dispute was the petitioner's khudkasht and not vested in the Gaon Samaj. 3. Whether Rule 115 was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 115-C(2) empowers the Chairman, any Member, or the Secretary of the Land Management Committee to report cases of injury or interference with Gaon Samaj property to the Collector. The report in the present case, though not in the prescribed form, was made by members of the Land Management Committee and was sufficient to initiate proceedings under Rule 115-C. 2. The petitioner had accepted a patta from the Land Management Committee for the land in dispute, thereby acknowledging that the land vested in the Gaon Samaj. He could not later claim that the land was his khudkasht and not vested in the Gaon Samaj. 3. Rule 115 provides a summary remedy for the removal of encroachment or repair of damage to Gaon Samaj land, while Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides for a regular suit for ejectment or recovery of possession. Rule 115-C does not apply to cases where the title of the Gaon Samaj itself is disputed or where a person is in possession of the land under a patta, even if the patta is later declared illegal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the notice issued against the petitioner under Rule 115-D, holding that the proceedings under Rule 115-C were not applicable in the present case.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of prohibition restraining the Tehsildar of Mau, opposite party No. 1, from proceeding further with the proceedings, under Rule 115-C, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.
( 2 ) BEFORE the abolition of the zamindari, the petitioner asserts that he was a co-sharer in patti No. 10 of village Khor, pargana Mau, district Banda, in which plot No. 251/1 measuring an area of 53 bighas and 3 biswas is situate. According to the petitioners assertion in the affidavit it was cleared and brought under cultivation in 1358-F. and since then he has been cultivating it. Near about 6th of November, 1956 a registered letter purporting to be on behalf of apposite parties Nog. 2 to 14 was sent to the Tahsildar of Mau complaining against Sri Ansdhari, Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. A similar letter was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karvi, and that was sent by him to the Tahsildar of Mau. Thereupon a notice under Rule 115-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules was issued against the petitioner requiring him to file an objection in his Court on 4th of April, 1956. These proceedings have been challenged by means of the present petition.
( 3 ) THE history of the plot as set out in the affidavit of the petitioner is that on 3rd of December, 1953 a meeting of the Land Management Committee of the Gram Samaj was called under the orders of the Government to give land of the Gram Samaj to needy villagers. On that date the petitioner had come to know that plot No. 251/1 which had been under his cultivation was also to be let out. The petitioner made a representation in the meeting praying that the land was cultivated by him and should not be let out to others. The Land Management Committee unanimously decided to recognise the petitioners right over 24 bighas of plot No. 251/1 and a patta was executed in the name of the petitioner and his younger brother Ram Krishna. On 28th of March, 1955 the sub-Divisional Officer, Karvi, during his inspection tour and partal in village Kher made a note in the Khasra of 1362f, against the name of Babu Lal on plot No. 251/1 in the following words: "this patta is cancelled. The land vests in the Gaon Sama. " the validity of this endorsement is challenged by the petitioner. Thereupon on 13th of May, 1955 the Chairman of the Gaon Samaj was called by the Naib Tehsildar and certain endorsement was made on the register of the Gaoa Samaj behind the back of the petitioner or Ram Krishna. The petitioner, however, continued to be in possession of this plot since 1358f. Thereafter 13 persons of the village sent a registered letter to the Tahsildar of Mau which was sent by him to the Supervisor Kanungo. Rajapur, on 16th of November, 1955 for enquiry and a report was submitted by him on 5th of December, 1955, and thereupon on 6th of December, 1955 the Tahsildar sent a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the effect that the Chairman of the Land Management Committee executed a lease in favour of the present petitioner his brother which was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 28th of March, 1955; but in spite of that cancellation the petitioner continued to be in possession. If approved by the sub-Divisional Magistrate the petitioner may be prosecuted under the criminal law. The sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, issued notice under Rule 115 on 16th of December, 1955 requiring the petitioner to file objections on 4th of April, 1956.
( 4 ) NOTICES were sent to the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 by the Standing Counsel and another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 it is stated that the patta which was executed on 15th of March, 1954 in favour of the petitioner was void as the Land Management Committee was not authorised to
AI
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
