Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.:—

Heard Sri S.M. Waseem , learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel as well as Sri R.N.Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha.

Facts, in brief , of the present case are that the land recorded in Gata No. 511-0.101 and 571-0.229 as per version of the petitioner was allotted to him on 11.8.2004 by the Land Management Committee of the village Panchayat under Section 198(1) (c ) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act') as he is a landless labourer, belonging to backward class living below the poverty line.

However, the same was cancelled on the basis of Lekhpal report dated 19.3.2008 ( Annexure no.3) by opposite party no.3/Additional Collector, Sitapur on 29.6.2011.

Aggrieved by the said fact, petitioner for redressal of his grievance , filed a revision ( Revision No. 3 of 2010-11, Surendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 333 of the Act, dismissed by opposite party no.2/ Additional Commissioner( Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow vide order dated 7.9.2012 ( Annexure no.4).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the same are illegal arbitrary in nature as well as the in contravention of the facts and circumstances of the case because there is no irregularities or infirmity in allotting the land to him by way of patta/ lease as he falls under the backward category as per the provisions provided under Section 198 of the Act.

He further submits that the action on the part of the opposite party no.3 to cancel the same in view of the provisions as provided under Section 28 (C ) of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Act is an illegal exercise and contrary to law as the same cannot be cancelled in view of the said provisions as per the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his arguments , he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Govind and others Vs. Sub- Divisional Officer , Machlishahar , District Jaunpur and others, 1986 All.C.J. 479, and Jiya Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (2) ADJ 683 Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are illegal , arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside.

Learned State Counsel as well as Sri R.N.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha submits that as the petitioner was the member of Land Management Committee at the time of allotment of land by way of patta/ lease hence the same cannot be granted to him in view of the provisions as provided under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Act, 1947 hence there is neither any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the pleadings, as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition ( specially in para-8) undisputed facts are that the petitioner was a member of Land Management Committee at the time of allotment of land by way of patta/ lease, so in view of the said fact and as per the provisions of Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, he could not have been alloted the land in question without permission in writing of the Collector as the said section provides as under:-

"28-C. Members and officers not the acquire interest in contracts etc. with Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti,-- (1) No member or office bearer of Gaon Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall , otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, Knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, exchange, contract or employment with , by , or on behalf of the Samiti concerned."

This Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh and others Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1981 RD 333 after taking into consideration the provisions as provide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document