RAM DEO vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2008 Supreme(All) 969

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(All) 969

[2008(4) ADJ 625]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
RAM DEO AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 4095, 7146, 7160, 7164, 7168, 9775, 4093, 15115, 15057, 15102, 15579, 14162, 11932, 5884, 10702, 4288, 4285, 4286, 4287, 18273, 15886, 14128, 15262 and 14751 of 2008, decided on
21st April, 2008)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.B. Singhal, Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, R.K. Mishra, B.D. Mishra, Sharad Mandhyan, Manoj Pathak, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Rajendra Kumar Mishra, V.K. Mishra, Abhishek Mayank, Harish Chandra Mishra, Javed Habib, B.M. Singh, Sayed Mahmood, Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, Anil Kumar Aditya, Triveni Shankar for the Petitioners; V.K. Singh for L.M.C.; S.C. for the State-Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952—Rules 176-A(2) and 171-A(2)—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 202, 204, 212-A, 198(9), 200, 133(c), 132 and 212—Lease—Cancellation of—On ground that period of leases has expired—Challenged on ground that no proceedings were drawn for cancellation of leases and no apportunity was given to petitioners—Expunging of entries without any notice, or opportunity of hearing and no adverse inference—Question of—Held, submission that powers under Rules 176-A(2) can be exercised only to leases, referred to in Section 198(9), cannot be accepted—Said powers can be exercised by Asstt. Collector, for determining any lease, in favour of an Asami—Thus, that power can be exercised with regard to any kind of lease in favour of an Asami—Word “Asami” in Rule 176-A(2) cannot be confined to one category of Asami lease, as contemplated under Section 198(9), rather that would cover all Asami leases—Summary procedure of Section 212-A can also be invoked with regard to public utility land—But present was a case where power was sought to be invoked under Rule 176-A(2)—Thus, submission of petitioners that only procedure for invoking power was under Section 202, cannot be accepted—Under Rule 171-A(2), period of Asami lease earlier was 9 years—And after amendment in Rule 176-A(1), said period reduced to five years—S.D.O. can determine Asami leases under Rule 176-A(2)—However, said power can be exercised by issuing notice—As petitioner's lease have been cancelled, on ground that period of leases have expired, it was not required to issue any fresh notice to petitioners—However, petitioners may file objections against proposed action under Rule 176-A(2) before S.D.O.—Who would in turn to decide in accordance with law. [Paras 9, 22, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 37]

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri R.B. Singhal, Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, Sri R.K. Mishra, Sri B.D. Mishra, Sri Sharad Mandhyan, Sri Manoj Pathak, Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Rajendra Kumar Mishra, Sri V.K. Mishra, Sri Abhishek Mayank, Harish Chandra Mishra, Sri Javed Habib, Sri B.M. Singh, Sri Syed Mahmood, Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, Sri Anil Kumar Aditya and Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Sri V.K. Singh has been heard for respective Land Management Committees and learned Standing counsel has been heard for the State.

2. All the above writ petitions raise similar issues, which have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that writ petitions be finally decided. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel in Writ Petition No. 4095 of 2008 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, the said writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition.

4. All the above writ petitions can be conveniently grouped in three different categories. The first group of the writ petitions are Writ Petition Nos. 4095 of 2008, 7146 of 2008, 7160 of 2008, 7164 of 2008, 7168 of 2008, 9775 of 2008, 4093 of 2008, 15115 of 2008, 15057 of 2008, 15102 of 2008, 15579 of 2008 and 14162 of 2008 in which writ petitions prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 9th June, 2006 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue as well as the orders issued by the Tahsildar directing expunction of the entries of the petitioners whose names were recorded as asami in the revenue entries.

5. Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that a report was sent by Lekhpal and forwarded by other revenue officials to Tahsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer stating that the names of the petitioners are continuing in Class-3 as asami in Khatauni, which may be expunged and the land be vested in the State. The Tahsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer acting on the said reports, has directed expunction of the entries. Petitioners’ grievance is that the said expunction has been directed without drawing any proceeding and without issuing any notice to the petitioners.

6. The second group of writ petitions are Writ Petition Nos. 11932 of 2008, 5884 of 2008, 10702 of 2008, 4288 of 2008, 4285 of 2008, 4286 of 2008, 4287 of 2008 and 18273 of 2008. These writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by Tahsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer directing expunction of the entries. Revision was filed before the Commissioner under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which having been rejected, writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the Tahsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the order of the revisional Court.

7. The grievance of the petitioners in second group of writ petitions is that their names have been expunged without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. However, the facts and pleadings in this group of writ petitions differs from case to case, which shall be referred to hereinbelow while considering respective writ petitions.

8. The third group of writ petitions are Writ Petition No. 15886 of 2008, 14128 of 2008, 15262 of 2008 and 14751 of 2008. In these writ petitions the order passed by Consolidation Officer directing expunction of the entries of the petitioners from the revenue record has been challenged. Petitioners’ case is that on the basis of report received from Assistant Consolidation Officer that the names of the petitioners are continuing in Class-3 as asami, an order was passed by Consolidation Officer expunging the name from the revenue records. The order passed by Consolidation Officer has been challenged on the ground that no proceedings were drawn for cancellation of the leases and no opportunity was given to the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the impugned orders, have raised various submissions. The submissions raised by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(All) 969

Cases Referred (1)