IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Sayyed Abbas - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 88 of 2023
Decided On : 25-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cancellation of land grants (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. legal validity of land grants to minors (Para 11 , 39 , 47) |
| 3. petitioner argues against regulatory authority (Para 18 , 19) |
| 4. court upheld the authority of the chief revenue officer and the legality of the proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court found that the cancellation was justified despite procedural arguments. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 6. procedure and inquiry under section 15-a (Para 30 , 37 , 41) |
| 7. court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the cancellation orders. (Para 50) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as also Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order 28.12.2022 passed by the opposite party No. 2-Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur in Case No. 2714 of 2022, Computerized Case No. D202204680002714 (State v. Sayeed Abbas), which was instituted under Section 15 -A of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (in short ''U.P. Act No. 10 of 1953''), whereby, the Grant/Patta dated 19.6.1982 related to Plot No. 1178 M area 1 Biswa and 15 Biswansi, and Grant/Patta dated 2.9.1985 related to Plot No. 1178 M area 5 Biswansi, situate at Village-Goravarik Pargana-Meeranpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Sultanpur, has been cancelled.
3. Before entering into the merits of the case, I feel it appropriate to indicate that on 18.8.2023 the final order was dictated in open Court. However, on account of some confusion, at the time of signing of final order, regarding disposal of application seeking amendment, the case was again ordered to be listed vide order dated 18.8.2023 and thereafter on 15.9.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved.
4. Undisputed facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner was minor, at the time of Grant(s), in issue, dated 19.6.1982 and 2.9.1985, respectively, which have been cancelled by the impugned order dated 28.12.2022. In particular, the petitioner was aged about 12 years old, at the time of providing first Grant dated 19.6.1982 and at the time of Grant dated 2.9.1985, he was 15 years old.
5. The property/land, in issue, was provided by virtue of these Grant(s) under the U.P. Act No. 10 of 1953, which was promulgated for specific purpose.
6. The part of property i.e. 1 Biswa obtained under the Act No. 10 of 1953 was transferred through sale-deed dated 17.7.2012 to Rehana Begum W/o Intzaar and on 5.2.2022 rest part of property i.e. 1 Biswa, was transferred to Ishratulla S/o Shahadatulla and Mohd. Khaleeq S/o Tahir Khan.
At this stage, this Court finds it appropriate to refer the judgment of this Court passed in the case of B.R. Nangia v. State of U.P. and others , 2011(10) ADJ 242 ; wherein this Court, after considering the aims and objects as also the relevant provision of U.P. Act No. 10 of 1953, observed that the grantee shall not be entitled to sublet or transfer the land and cannot use the land for the purpose other than it was granted. The relevant paras of the report are as under :
8. Act, 1952 was enacted to facilitate donation of land in connection with the Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave and to provide for settling of such land on the landless persons. The statute was enacted realizing certain difficulties faced in respect to donation of land by the persons having agricultural land in view of certain provisions of Act, 1950 and to overcome such difficulties. The statement of objects and reasons published with
Ramnik Lal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra
Amrendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others
Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue
Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P.
K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam and others alongwith K. Kamalam v. K. Balakrishnan and others
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another v. D. Narsing Rao and others; (2015) 3 SCC 695
Grants made to minors under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act are void ab initio, as minors do not qualify as 'landless agricultural labourers' under the law.
A landless person can be granted land under the U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act irrespective of their residency in the village where the land is located, as long as there are no eligible landless persons in th....
Point of law: Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and have no legal effect, emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional validity in admin....
The exercise of statutory authority must be within a reasonable period, and fraud vitiates all proceedings.
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 1960 notification declaring the land as 'reserved forest' was illegal and invalid, and the Bhoodan Committee had no right to transfer the ....
The Joint Collector is competent to exercise power under BSO 15(18) and deal with the issues regarding assignment of land. The power under BSO 15(18) can be exercised at any time in view of the langu....
The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.