Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Babu Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ C No. 16886 of 2019
Decided On : 02-07-2019
Cancellation of Allotment - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 138, Section 128 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 and Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and their interpretation in the context of cancellation of allotment. The court emphasized that an allotment could only be cancelled if the procedure prescribed for making the allotment was not followed, and since no such finding was returned, the impugned orders were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the cancellation of an allotment made in favor of the petitioner for a plot of land, which was contested on the grounds of cultivation and public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allotment could only be cancelled if the procedure prescribed for making the allotment was not followed, and since no such finding was returned, the impugned orders were set aside.
Issues: The issues included the cultivation of the allotted plot, the time bar for cancellation, and the irregularity in the process of allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an allotment could only be cancelled if the procedure prescribed for making the allotment was not followed, and since no such finding was returned, the impugned orders were set aside.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 18.04.2019 and 10.01.2019, passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively, were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard, Shri. Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Santosh Tripathi, who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent nos.4 an 5 after having obtained no objection from Shri Ramesh Pundir, who had filed caveat on behalf of the said respondents.
2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 138 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for cancellation of an allotment made in favour of the petitioner in so far as it pertains to plot no.342 area 0.0950 hectare.
3. The application for cancellation of the allotment was filed by Ranvir Singh, respondent no.5 on the ground that the plot in question had been allotted to the petitioner by a resolution of the Gaon Sabha Ataur dated 16.09.1984, which was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 11.03.1985. It was alleged that the petitioner is not cultivating the said plot and that he has executed a sale deed of part of some plot, which was also allotted to him. Plot no.342 was coming within the area of National Level Stadium being developed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and therefore, its allotment was liable to be cancelled in the public interest. It was also averred that a resolution for development of the Gaon Sabha land for a National Level Stadium was passed on 22.08.2016.
4. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he was in cultivatory possession over the plot in question.
5. It was also his case that the allotment having been made in the year 1983, the proceedings for its cancellation were barred by time. An allotment would be cancelled in accordance with Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only if the allotment had been made within 5 years from the date of the enforcement of the said Act.
6. The Additional Collector by his order dated 10.01.2019 cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the land in question was recorded as naveen parti in the khasra of 1417 to 1425 F and because there was a report of the Tehsildar dated 01.05.2018 that the land in question was not under cultivation. Referring to Section 127 (2) of the Act, the authorities below found that the terms of the allotment were not complied with and therefore, also the allotment was liable to be and was cancelled.
7. The order aforesaid has been affirmed upon dismissal of the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.
8. The Additional Commissioner has additionally observed that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell regarding some other land, which was also allotted to him.
9. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment was hopelessly barred by time.
10. It is next contended that the allotment was liable to be cancelled only in case of a irregularity in the process of allotment. The report that the petitioner was not cultivating the land in question is incorrect and a got up document. Evidence has been produced by the petitioner in the form of Khasra extracts of 1413, 1414 and 1415 F, wherein crops sown by the petitioner were entered in the relevant column thereof.
11. It has also been submitted that no finding of any irregularity in the process of allotment in favour of the petitioner has been found by the two Courts below.
12. It is lastly contended that the entire proceedings have been initiated by the respondent no.5 in his individual capacity. There is material on record to show that in the proceedings for cancellation before the Additional Collector, the Land Management Committee was not a party. The proceedings therefore, were defective and should have been dismissed. In deciding to the contrary, the Courts below have committed manifest illegality. The impugned orders are therefore, liable to be set aside.
13. Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 has submitted that the plot in question is not being cultivated on the spot.
14. It has
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
