Back
2020 Supreme(All) 670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Sanjay Kumar and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 42535 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anil Kumar Mehrotra and Tarun Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: C.S.C. and Mahesh Narain Singh
Point of law: no requirement for, initiation of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as against an asami. The lease of an asami can be terminated at any time in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rule
Headnote:
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 – Section 76(1) – U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act – Section 198(4) Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules – Rule 176A – Lease Issue –no requirement for, initiation of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as against an asami. The lease of an asami can be terminated at any time in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules
Facts of the case:
Writ Petition Is Against the Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bulandshahr, whereby the name of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was ordered to be expunged from plot on the ground that period of the asami lease granted to him had expired – The order whereby the consequential revision has been dismissed is also impugned.
Finding of the court: –
It appears that the name of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was also incorporated in the proceedings under Section 198(4), because the lease approved was with regard to both asamis and bhumidhars with non-transferable rights – However, mention of the wrong section or a wrong provision of law will not render the proceedings against the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest void or vitiated – In view of the foregoing and since the limitation provided for cancellation of a lease granted to a bhumidhari with non-transferable rights, does not apply in the case of an asami lease, the writ petition is without merit.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.9.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bulandshahr, whereby the name of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was ordered to be expunged from plot No. 347, on the ground that period of the asami lease granted to him had expired. The order dated 30.10.2019, whereby the consequential revision has been dismissed is also impugned.
3. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned is that the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act instituted almost 20 years after the allotment was made, were clearly barred by time.
4. The next submission is that the lease, which has been cancelled was of plot No. 347, which abuts a road. Plot No. 348, which belongs to the petitioner is situated behind plot No. 347 and the only access thereto is over plot No. 347. This plot No. 347 is not a plot recorded or reserved for a public purpose.
5. The last argument raised is that the petitioner was recorded as an asami and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 76(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which benefit accrues to him by operation of law.
6. It appears that a proposal for an allotment was made by the Land Management Committee in its meeting held on 28.12.1987 and the same was approved by the Tehsildar on 12.1.1988. The allotments were of plot Nos. 319, 218, 152, 71, 25 and 347.
7. The dispute in this writ petition only pertains to plot No. 347. The allotments as regards other plots, except plot No. 347, have been cancelled for various reasons, including, that by the same resolution both agricultural leases and asami leases were granted, without preparing separate lists of the persons eligible for the two types of allotments and that persons higher in eligibility were ignored. Besides, plot Nos. 319 and 218 could not have been subject-matter of allotment, having been reserved for plantations, while part of plot No. 152 was found to be recorded in the name of Nagar Palika and the remainder, as a graveyard.
8. It would be relevant to note that the petitioners were allotted an asami lease. Under the circumstances, the case of the petitioners is distinct and separate as regards other allottees.
9. It is settled law that an asami lease in accordance with Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, can be for a maximum period of five years. Such an allotment of an asami lease, approved in the year 1988, necessarily came to an end in the year 1993. No question of limitation arises their lease terminated in 1993 by operation of law.
10. For the same reason, the petitioners have no case and it is immaterial whether the petitioners, because of the impugned orders do not have any access of plot No. 348.
11. The only other aspect, which requires consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as has been contended, they or their predecessor, being recorded as asamis.
12. The petitioners in effect claim benefit of Section 76(1)(dd), which reads as follows:
"[(dd) every person who was an asami in possession of land not covered by Section 77 of this Code, immediately before the date of the commencement of this Code and had been recorded as such in Class 3 of the annual register (khatauni) of 1407 Fasli:
Provided that where the land in possession of a person, together with any other land, held by him in Uttar Pradesh exceeds the ceiling area determined under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the rights of a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights shall accrue in favour of such person in respect of so much area of the first mentioned land, as together with such other land held by him, does not exceed the ceiling area applicable to him, and the said area shall be demar
