Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Sushma Srivastava – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 1000081 of 1994
Decided On : 22-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Avadhesh Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The cancellation of a patta for fisheries rights was deemed unjustified as it was based on erroneous assumptions regarding the petitioner's eligibility under the UPZA and LR Act.
Headnote:
(A) UPZA and LR Act - Section 198(4) - Cancellation of patta - The petitioner was granted a patta for fisheries rights, which was cancelled on the grounds of not being a landless agricultural labourer - The court found that the cancellation was without jurisdiction as the patta was validly granted for fisheries purposes. (Paras 4, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - The courts below acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the patta based on conjecture and surmises, failing to recognize the statutory rights granted under the Act. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her patta for land designated for fisheries, arguing that the decision was based on incorrect assumptions about her status as a landless agricultural labourer.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the cancellation of the patta, affirming that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for being a landless agricultural labourer.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the patta for fisheries rights under the UPZA and LR Act despite her husband's government employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the cancellation of the patta was unjustified as it was based on erroneous interpretations of the law regarding land allocation for fisheries.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional CSC for respondent-State.
2. The present dispute pertains to plot Nos. 22/23 and 276M/1.25 situated in village Mohammadpur Dina, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri. The patta in respect of disputed land was granted to the petitioner in pursuance of a resolution made by land management committee on 22.04.1987, which was later on approved by the Addl. Sub Divisional Officer on 12.07.1987. On the basis of tehsil report, the proceedings under Section 198(4) UPZA and LR Act for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed land were started on the ground that her husband was having much land and he was on the post of Assistant Engineer. Further the petitioner was not found in the category of land less agricultural labour.
3. On the basis of said report of tehsil, a case was registered and a notice was served on the petitioner in which the petitioner filed her objection on the ground that she was the permanent resident of the said gaon sabha and she was a land less agricultural labour. In support of her case, the petitioner produced herself and two witnesses - Misri Lal and Pyara Lal. It is submitted that on behalf of the State, only one witness i.e. Ram Gopal, Lekhpal was produced. The petitioner also filed the extract of Khatauni as well as Khasra showing the name of the petitioner over the said disputed land.
4. By perusal of khasra and khatauni filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the disputed land i.e. plot Nos. 276 & 22 are recorded as talab and the petitioner had taken the training of fisheries. It is stated that the patta in favour of the petitioner was for fisheries purpose and therefore the cancellation of patta by the Collector, Kheri under Section 198 (4) UPZA and LR Act is without jurisdiction.
5. Vide order dated 13.08.1990, the Collector, Kheri has cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner is not the land less agricultural labour and husband of the petitioner is doing government service and as such, she is not competent to get patta. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision before the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who dismissed the revision on 27.10.1993. Against the said order dated 27.10.1993, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who dismissed the review petition on 14.12.1993 on the ground that no new argument could be brought on her behalf as made earlier at the time of passing the order dated 27.10.1993.
6. Being aggrieved by orders dated 13.08.1990 passed by the Collector, orders dated 27.10.1993 and 14.12.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have committed error in cancelling the patta of the petitioner on imagination, conjecture and surmises. In fact, the record has wrongly interpreted and wrong conclusion was made that the petitioner was not a competent person to get the patta granted in her favour.
8. He next submitted that the courts below have acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the patta of the petitioner under Section 198 (4) UPZA and LR Act, while the said patta was granted in favour of the petitioner for fisheries rights.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC for respondent State on the basis of counter affidavit stated that on the basis of resolution passed by the land management committee, gata No. 22/0.23 acre and 276 min./1.25 acre total 2 kita/1.48 land was allotted in faovur of the petitioner and both these gatas pertain to the pond, therefore, a report for cancelling the patta was sent to the Court of District Magistrate, Kheri under Section 198(4) UPZA and LR Act. The District Magistrat
