Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Ram Tirath – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and Others – Respondents
Writ C. No.2686 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-03-2024
Code of 2006 - U.P. Revenue Code - Section 67, Section 67A, Section 122-B(4-F), Section 123, Section 195, Section 197, Section 198, Section 230 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court emphasizes the rights and protections provided to agricultural laborers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 122-B(4-F) and the implications of the repeal of the Act of 1950 on the acquired rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, claimed possession of land under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950. The respondent authorities initiated proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 to evict the petitioner from the land recorded as 'Banjar'. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the authorities, contending that his plea based on Section 122-B(4-F) was not rightly considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent authorities erred in law and facts by not considering the effect of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 and Section 230 of the Code of 2006. They failed to assess the petitioner's fulfillment of the criteria to seek the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) and did not record findings on the period of possession, the area of land, and the fulfillment of criteria by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correct interpretation and application of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, and the errors made by the respondent authorities in considering the petitioner's plea based on Section 122-B(4-F).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent authorities erred in law and facts by not considering the effect of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 and Section 230 of the Code of 2006, and by failing to assess the petitioner's fulfillment of the criteria to seek the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F).
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 05.02.2024 and 15.07.2023 were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar to decide the matter afresh, strictly in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Gram Sabha concerned.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.3/Tehsildar (Nyayik), Mandal- Ayodhya, District- Barabanki, Tehsil-Nawabganj, in the proceedings carried out against the petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case No. 9045/2016, Computerized Case No. T20160412019045 (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Tirath).
3. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Collector, Ayodhya Mandal, District-Barabanki, in the Appeal No. 3037/2023, Computerized Case No. D202304120003037 (Ram Tirath vs. Gaon Sabha and others) filed under Section 67(5) of the Code of 2006.
4. By the order dated 15.07.2023, the respondent no.3 directed the revenue official concerned to evict the petitioner from Gata No.458/.02960 Hect. (recorded as 'Banjar').
5. Brief facts, which appears from the material available on record and are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present petition, are as under:-
(ii) As per Khatauni of fasli year 1424-1429, the petitioner and his wife are Bhumidhar with transferable rights of Gata no.464/0.055 Hect. and Gata no. 551/0.279 Hect. of Khata no.234.
(iii) On being found in possession of a part land situated in Village-Pyarepur Saraiya, Pargan-Pratapganj, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District-Barabanki bearing Gata no.458 measuring 0.2960 Hect. recorded as Grade-5 'Banjar' land in the revenue records, the Lekhpal of the vicinity submitted a report dated 03.07.2016 and based upon the same, the respondent no.3 initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of Code of 2006.
(iv) In the proceedings aforesaid registered as Case No. 9045 of 2016, the petitioner took the defence based upon Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "the Act of 1950").
(v) The case set up by the petitioner on the basis of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 in the proceedings under Section 67 of Code of 2006 was rejected by the respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 15.07.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinunder:-
6. Impeaching the impugned orders dated 05.02.2024 and 15.07.2023, it is stated that in rejecting the plea based upon Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 taken by the petitioner, the respondent nos.2 and 3 erred in law and facts both and as such interference and protection of this Court is required.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel stated that the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered by the Court being reasoned and speaking orders as also that under Section 67A of the Code, 2006, the 'house sites' can be settled/protected and the petitioner is in possession of land recorded as 'Banjar' and he and his wife are recorded tenure holder of Gata no.464/0.055 Hect. and Gata no.551/0.297 Hect.
8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
9. Issue before the Court is as to whether the plea of the petitioner, based upon Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950, has rightly been considered by respondent nos.2 and 3.
10. In order to decide the aforesaid, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of some authorities wherein Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 has been considered and interpreted.
11. Relevant paras of the judgment p
The judgment establishes the importance of considering the rights and protections provided to agricultural laborers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 122-B(4-F) of the ....
Deeming provision under Section 122-B(4-F) confers bhumidhar rights on eligible Scheduled Caste landless labourers; ex-parte recalls invalid; no revision against such orders or restorations thereof.
The recall of benefits granted under Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is impermissible without following proper legal procedures.
Possession for over 12 years confers sirdari rights; established orders must be recognized by revenue authorities to amend records suitably.
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
The court upheld the rights of agricultural laborers under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Act, ruling that the disputed plots were not acquired by the State, thus confirming their status as....
Procedural compliance is essential in eviction proceedings to ensure fairness and transparency, as established by prior judgments.
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community memb....
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
