Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—The reference to the Division Bench has been occasioned by an order dated 1 October 2013 of a learned Single Judge while dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act of 1950).

2. The learned Single Judge noticed several judgments of coordinate Benches dealing with the provisions of Section 122-B. In some of the judgments, learned Single Judges had held that in certain circumstances, while deciding a challenge to an order of eviction under Section 122-B, this Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, had the jurisdiction to direct the settlement of the land in favour of an individual found to be in unauthorized occupation by substituting an order for the payment of damages in lieu of the order of eviction. These judgments were delivered in:

(i) Ajanta Udyog Mandal Vidyalay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, LAWS (ALL)-2005-1-103 (decided on 28 January, 2005);

(ii) Budhaee v. Collector, Fatehpur, 2005(98) RD 741 (decided on 19 April, 2005);

(iii) Sukhdeo v. Collector, Banda, 2007 (102) RD 83 (decided on 6 November, 2006)

(iv) Kishore Singh v. Additional Collector, Agra, 2007(1) ADJ 679 (decided on 21 November, 2006)

(v) Siya Ram v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, 2007(7) ADJ 451.

(vi) Ram Charan v. Additional Collector (Prashashan), Firozabad, Agra, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4775 of 1983 (decided on 9 March, 2007).

3. The learned Single Judge noted that taking a contrary view in Pratap Singh Shishodia v. Board of Revenue, Allahabad, 2008 (1) AWC 380, another learned Single Judge had, however, taken the view that it would not be permissible to allow a person, who had grabbed public property by a back-door process, to claim settlement of the property and to have his occupation legalised. The learned Single Judge held that the tendency of encroachment on public land and property was increasing and it was not appropriate to place a premium on a wrong and void act unless it is permitted in law.

4. Noticing this conflict, the learned Single Judge has referred the following questions for adjudication by the Division Bench:

1. Whether the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in the cases of Ajanta Udyog Mandal Vidyalay (supra), Budhaee (supra), Sukhdeo (supra), Kishore Singh (supra) and Siya Ram (supra), are in direct conflict with the view taken by another learned Single Judge in the case of Pratap Singh Shishodia (supra) and consequently;

2. As to which of the said decisions lay down the law correctly keeping in view the provisions referred to hereinabove of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950;

3. Whether the view expressed in the case of Sukhdeo (supra) on the issue of limitation runs counter to the view taken in the case of Rakshpal Singh (supra).

5. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that

(i) The constitutional goal of shelter to all is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it is the duty of the State to take all necessary steps for realizing the constitutional goal and purpose;

(ii) If the decisions of the learned Single Judges are properly construed, there is no conflict between the views expressed in those decisions;

(iii) The Act of 1950 contains a specific provision for regularization of occupation in respect of certain categories or classes, just as it makes a provision for allotment of land for specified categories of persons;

(iv) There is no provision prohibiting regularization in those cases which do not fall within the categories specifically spelt out in the statute, which leaves open an area for the exercise of judicial discretion in an appropriate case;

(v) In Budhaee’s case (supra) and those which have followed it, the learned Single Judges have correctly exercised their equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing that the land be settled in favour of the individual