Back
2007 Supreme(All) 1879
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar, Sabhajeet Yadav
RAM NARAIN
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUZAFFARNAGAR
Decided On : 09 July 2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15936 of 1989
B.D.MADHYAN, S.C.MADHYAN, Satish Madhyan, Umesh Shankar,
The provisions of Section 123 (2) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, are applicable to the land in dispute, which is situated in a village and not in a notified area, a cantonment or a town area. The declaration made under Section 143 (1) of the Act does not affect the operation and applicability of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, which includes Section 123, in respect of such land. The settlement of land can be made in favour of persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C if they have built their houses on any land held by tenure holders (not being Government lessees) and such house existed on 30th day of June, 1985.
Headnote:
The Court held that the provisions of Section 123 (2) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, are applicable to the land in dispute, which is situated in a village and not in a notified area, a cantonment or a town area. The Court further held that the declaration made under Section 143 (1) of the Act does not affect the operation and applicability of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, which includes Section 123, in respect of such land. The Court also held that the settlement of land can be made in favour of persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C if they have built their houses on any land held by tenure holders (not being Government lessees) and such house existed on 30th day of June, 1985.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were Bhumidhars with transferable rights over the land in dispute, filed a writ petition challenging the notice issued under Rule 115-C and Rule 115-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, and the report of the Tehsildar recommending the grant of benefits of Section 123 (1) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, to the respondents, who were members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and had built houses on the land in dispute prior to 30th June, 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Section 123 (2) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, are applicable to the land in dispute, which is situated in a village and not in a notified area, a cantonment or a town area. The Court further held that the declaration made under Section 143 (1) of the Act does not affect the operation and applicability of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, which includes Section 123, in respect of such land. The Court also held that the settlement of land can be made in favour of persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C if they have built their houses on any land held by tenure holders (not being Government lessees) and such house existed on 30th day of June, 1985.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Section 123 (2) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, are applicable to the land in dispute, which is situated in a village and not in a notified area, a cantonment or a town area. Whether the declaration made under Section 143 (1) of the Act affects the operation and applicability of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, which includes Section 123, in respect of such land. Whether the settlement of land can be made in favour of persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C if they have built their houses on any land held by tenure holders (not being Government lessees) and such house existed on 30th day of June, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of Section 123 (2) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, are applicable to the land in dispute, which is situated in a village and not in a notified area, a cantonment or a town area. The Court further held that the declaration made under Section 143 (1) of the Act does not affect the operation and applicability of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, which includes Section 123, in respect of such land. The Court also held that the settlement of land can be made in favour of persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C if they have built their houses on any land held by tenure holders (not being Government lessees) and such house existed on 30th day of June, 1985.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of the recommendation of the Tehsildar cannot be faulted with. The Court also quashed the proceedings of the civil suits filed by the petitioners against the respondents, holding that they had been rendered infructuous.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plot in dispute namely plot No. 2362 (area 1 bigha 14 biswas) situate in Qasba Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar lies within the limits of Municipality, Shamli. One Khajan Singh claimed himself to be land holder of said plot. However, there was lis between State of Uttar Pradesh and Khajan Singh. A notice purporting to be under Rule 115-C and Rule 115-D of the Rules was issued by the Tehsildar, Kairana way back on 17th June, 1960. By means of the aforesaid notice it was claimed that the land in dispute belonged to the then Gaon Samaj and Khajan Singh was asked to remove his constructions and handover possession of the land to the Gaon Sabha, or else appear in the Court on 18th July, 1960. Khajan Singh gave reply to the said notice claiming that he has been cultivating the land in dispute since 1358 fasli. He claimed that since before 1359 fasli he has become Sirdar of land in dispute. The Tehsildar, Kairana on being satisfied with the contention raised by late Khajan Singh discharged the notice and directed the file to be consigned. A copy of the notice dated 17th June, 1960
and order dated 31st July, 1960 passed by the Tehsildar are on record as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. However, yet another notice was issued once again purporting to be under Rule 115-C of the Rules by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kairana some times in March, 1962. This notice related to the land in dispute and contained more or less same facts as were stated in previous notice. A true copy of the said notice is on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition. Khajan Singh filed objection before Sub-Divisional Officer and vide order dated 30th June, 1962 the Sub-Divisional Officer held that proceeding cannot go since no notification as required by Section 117 of the Act had been published, he, therefore, directed the file to be consigned. A true copy of the order dated 30th June, 1962 is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. Thereafter proceeding for eviction of Khajan Singh had been initiated under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 but the said notice was also discharged and possession of Khajan Singh was found as Sirdar. The State did not prefer any appeal against the aforesaid order.
3. It is stated in writ petition that in pursuance
