IMPORTANT POINT
The Collector can cancel land allotments without notice if acting on his own motion, as per the U.P. Revenue Code, ensuring procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.-Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Land Management Committee.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 19.10.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Second) Kanpur Division, Kanpur/Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder, Revision No. 1782 of 2022, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed and the order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Farrukhabad/Respondent No. 3 has been upheld.

3. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. The petitioners claim to be landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Caste and OBC Categories and therefore, claim themselves, to be persons of preferential category under Section 126 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. They filed respective applications to the Land Management Committee of the village concerned for allotment of the agricultural leases under Section 125 of the Code. The Land Management Committee is stated to have held its meeting on 2.3.2020 after strictly following the provisions of Rule 119 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 found 17 persons of Schedule Caste, 102 of Other Backward Classes and 3 persons of General Categories, respectively, to be eligible for allotment of the agricultural leases vide its resolution dated 2.3.2020. The Tehsildar, under his report dated 17.12.2020 made recommendation to the Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Amritpur for according approval to as many as 81 persons found eligible for grant of leases as Bhumidhars with non transferable rights. The Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Amritpur, accorded approval for 81 leases including that of the petitioners vide approval order dated 5.1.2021 and the petitioners as well as other allottees were granted possession over the respective lands allotted under the respective leases.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that even though under Rule 121 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules there is no power to the Deputy Collector to review his order granting approval, the Deputy Collector, illegally and arbitrarily after a period of more than 1 year and 6 months passed an ex-parte order/reference to the Collector on 27.8.2022 pointing out irregularities in the allotment of the leases to the allottees including the petitioners. The Collector/District Magistrate, Farrukhabad relying on the reference made by the Deputy Collector dated 27.8.2022, ignoring the provisions of sub-rule 3 of Rule 126 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, without issuing notices to the allottees including the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or other allottees passed the order dated 5.9.2022 whereby cancelling the entire allotment dated 2.3.2020 as also the approval order dated 5.1.2021 and sent back the case to the Sub Divisional Officer for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2022 the petitioners preferred a Revision under Section 210 of the Revenue Code 2006 being Revision No. 1782 of 2022 which too has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the aforesaid backdrop, has vehemently argued that both the authorities i.e. the District Collector as also the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned orders have committed manifest error of law in overlooking the fact that the petitioners were not issued any notices as required under the mandatory provisions of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 126 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules which provides that the allottees were required to be impleaded as parties and opportunity of hearing was to be afforded to them before final orders were passed in the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners fur