Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3648
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Parmeshwar Prasad and 4 Others - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, Allahabad and 2 Others - Respondent
Writ - B No. - 45209, 45211 of 2016
Decided On : 28-09-2016
For the Petitioner:- Jagdamba Prasad Yadav
For the Respondent:-C.S.C.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the wide connotation of 'land covered by water' and the importance of protecting natural resources like ponds and tanks, as emphasized by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Disputed Land - Section 198 (4) - Section 122-B (4-F) - Section 132 - Section 117 (1) (vi) - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [Section 198 (4), Section 122-B (4-F), Section 132, Section 117 (1) (vi)] - The court discussed the interpretation and application of various sections of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, including the definition of 'talab' land, the restrictions on accruing 'bhumidhari' or 'sirdari' right, and the importance of protecting natural resources such as ponds and tanks. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions and their interpretations, particularly the Supreme Court's rulings emphasizing the need to protect and maintain ponds and tanks for the benefit of the community.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the deletion of their names from disputed land, claiming it was agricultural land and they had acquired 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' under the Act. The Chief Revenue Officer set aside the earlier order and directed to delete the names of the petitioners based on the High Court and Supreme Court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the wide connotation of 'land covered by water' and the importance of protecting natural resources like ponds and tanks. It upheld the Chief Revenue Officer's decision based on the legal provisions and the Supreme Court's rulings.
Issues: Interpretation of the nature of disputed land, applicability of relevant sections of the Act, and compliance with High Court and Supreme Court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions, including the definition of 'talab' land, the restrictions on accruing 'bhumidhari' or 'sirdari' right, and the importance of protecting natural resources such as ponds and tanks, as emphasized by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the Chief Revenue Officer's decision to delete the names of the petitioners from the disputed land.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
1. Heard Sri Jagdamba Prasad Yadav, for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Writ B No. 45209 of 2016 has been filed against the orders of Chief Revenue Officer dated 09.04.2013, deleting the names of Harideen, Paremeshwar Prasad, Mani Ram, Gaya Prasad, Rakesh, and Rajesh Kumar, from plot 287 (area 0.304 hectare) of village Bharsada, pargana Barausa, district Sultanpur and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 29.07.2016, dismissing revision of the petitioners. Writ B No. 45211 of 2016 has been filed against the orders of Chief Revenue Officer dated 18.03.2013, deleting the name of Darbari, from plot 287 (area 0.304 hectare) of village Bharsada, pargana Barausa, district Sultanpur and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 29.07.2016, dismissing revision of the petitioner, in the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 29.03.1992, passed in Case No. 8, under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, declared Darbari as 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' of plot 287 (area 1-0-0 bigha), Harideen (now represented by Paremeshwar Prasad and Mani Ram) as 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' of plot 287 (area 1-4-0 bigha), Bindeshwari Prasad (now represented by Gaya Prasad, Rakesh, and Rajesh Kumar) as 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' of plot 287 (area 1-0-0 bigha), who claim to be a landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste of village Bharsada. The petitioners have not filed copy of the order dated 29.03.1992. They have filed copy of khatauni of the year 1399 F-1404 F, in which plot 287 was recorded as 'talab', which contains an endorsement of the alleged order dated 29.03.1992, recording names as aforesaid.
4. Lekhpal of the village submitted a report dated 20.06.2012, stating therein that plot 287 (area 0.253 hectare) was 'talab' land. The names of Darbari, Harideen and Bindeshwari Prasad were wrongly recorded over it on the basis of patta approved by order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 18.05.1992. This report was forwarded by Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector on 20.06.2012. The Collector by order dated 21.06.2012 directed to register the case and transferred it to Chief Revenue Officer for disposal. Chief Revenue Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioners under Section 198 (4) of the Act. The petitioners submitted their reply on 21.08.2012. They stated that new plot 287 was carved out from old plot 1137, on which their ancestors were in possession. This plot was never in the shape of 'talab' rather it was agricultural land in which they were doing agriculture. The petitioners were landless agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste. They acquired 'bhumidhar with non-transferable right' under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly directed for recording their names over the disputed land.
5. Chief Revenue Officer, after hearing the parties, by orders dated 18.03.2013 and 09.04.2013, respectively held that High Court in Writ Petition No. 47176 of 2009, Dinanath Vs. State of U.P., by order dated 08.09.2009, in compliance of the order of Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 , directed to eject the person in possession of 'talab' land, who may be either allottee or unauthorized occupants. On these findings, he set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 18.05.1992 and directed to delete the names of the petitioners from disputed land. The petitioners filed their revisions (registered as revision Nos. 11 and 13 of 2012-13), which were dismissed by Board of Revenue U.P. by orders dated 29.07.2016. Hence, these petitions have been filed.
6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that new plot 287 was carved out from old plot 1137, on which the ancestors of the petitioners were in possession. This plot was never in th
