Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Seetla - Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ C No. 11406 of 2012
Decided On : 05-12-2019
For the Petitioner: Rajesh Kushwaha
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Mahesh Narain Singh, R.M. Yadav, R.N.Yadav
The Additional Collector, when exercising powers of a Collector under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, is deemed to have acted as the Collector for the purpose of such powers and functions.
Headnote:
U.P. Land Revenue Act - Exercise of Powers by Additional Collector - Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - 28
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, contending that the powers under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 can only be exercised by the Collector and not delegated to any subordinate officer. The petitioner also alleges lack of notice and opportunity in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the appointment of Collectors and Additional Collectors. It held that the Additional Collector, when exercising powers of a Collector, is deemed to have acted as the Collector for the purpose of such powers and functions under the Act. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim of lack of notice and opportunity, citing specific findings by the revisional authority.
Issues: Challenge to the exercise of powers by the Additional Collector under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of notice and opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: The Additional Collector, when exercising powers of a Collector under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, is deemed to have acted as the Collector for the purpose of such powers and functions. Allegations of lack of notice and opportunity were rejected based on specific findings by the revisional authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.N.Yadav, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. The present petition seeks to raise a challenge to an order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Additional Collector (Land Revenue) Jaunpur in Case No. 58 (Lootu Vs. Seetla) in proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 19011. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (1st) Varanasi Division, Varanasi whereby the Revision No. 382 of 2010 filed there against has also been rejected.
3. The principal ground sought to be raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the powers under Section 28 of the 1901 Act are to be exercised by the Collector and that the said powers cannot be delegated to any subordinate officer. It is submitted that the order dated 29.07.2010 which has been passed by the Additional Collector is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the order impugned passed by the Additional Collector is without notice and opportunity to the petitioner and as such the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel have pointed out that in terms of the provisions under the 1901 Act, the expression "Collector" would include "Additional Collector" also. It has further been pointed out that the records of the case indicate that upon the application filed by the fourth respondent seeking correction of the map an enquiry report was sought from the Naib Tehsildar and thereafter notice was issued to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner duly filed his objections but did not appear thereafter. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to notice and opportunity having not been granted to him is contrary to the material on record.
5. The question which falls for consideration in the present case is as to whether the powers which are to be exercised by the Collector under Section 28 of the 1901 Act would be exercisable by the Additional Collector also.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions the provisions under the 1901 Act may be adverted to.
7. It may be seen that that 1901 Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue and the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers in the State. The expressions “Revenue Court” and “Revenue Officer” have been defined under Section 4 (8) and Section 4 (9) of the 1901 Act. For ease of reference the said provisions are being extracted below:
“(8) 'Revenue Court' means all or any of the following authorities (that is to say), the Board and all members thereof Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, Assistant Record Officers and Tahsildars:
(9) 'Revenue Officers' means any officer employed under this Act, in maintaining revenue records, or in the business of the land revenue.”
8. The Act, 1901 envisages appointment of Collectors, Additional Collectors and Assistant Collectors in relation to a district, and the power to create a district is provided for in terms of Section 11 of the 1901 Act, which reads as under:
“11. Power to create, alter and abolish divisions, district, tahsils and subdivisions. (1) The State Government may create new or abolish existing divisions or districts.
(2) The State Government may alter the limit of any division, district or tahsil and may create new or abolish existing tahsil, and may divide any districts into subdivisions and may alter the limits of subdivisions.
(3) Subject to the orders of the State Government under Subsection (2) all tahsils shall be deemed to be subdivisions of districts.”
9. In terms of Section 14 of 1901
