Phool Singh vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2498

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Phool Singh And 3 Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And 37 Others - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. - 33402 OF 2022.
Decided On : 19-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Laxmi Shankar, Counsel.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 198 (4) - Petitioners sought cancellation of lease due to alleged ineligibility of allottees granted patta in 1997, arguing prior complaints were dismissed with liberty for further inquiry. However, the cancellation was later set aside due to being time barred and res-judicata. (Paras 2, 6, 10)

(B) Jurisdiction - The authority must adhere to statutory provisions and should not pursue applications for cancellation that violate principles like limitation and res-judicata. (Paras 9, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, residents of a specific village, sought the annulment of leases granted based on claims of fraud regarding entitlement and ineligibility of numerous allotment holders. This led to a cycle of legal proceedings over cancelled allotments initiated many years later.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the processes of cancellation were appropriately dismissed based on statutory violations and the application of res-judicata, indicating the previous rulings remained in force.

Issues: The main issues involved were whether the second cancellation proceedings were barred by limitations and the applicability of res-judicata to previous rulings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the cancellation proceedings initiated after a prolonged period were not valid due to the provisions of limitation and res-judicata, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory conditions.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. cancellation of lease proceedings initiated. (Para 2)
2. fraud vitiates legality; challenge to jurisdiction. (Para 3)
3. summary of procedural history; past rulings impact present case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. application of limitation act to patta cancellation. (Para 7)
5. previous rulings govern current proceedings under res-judicata. (Para 8)
6. abuse of process in seeking cancellation of established rights. (Para 9 , 10)
7. procedural compliance required for u.p.z.a. & l.r. act cases. (Para 11)
8. no interference with previous orders justified. (Para 12)
9. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Umar Iqbal Khan, Advocate assisted by Mr. Laxmi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 i.e. Land Management Committee.

2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioners, who are resident of Village- Budhiya, Pargana- Dasna, Tahsil- Dhaulana, District- Hapur, are pursuing the case for cancellation of lease under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the allottee, who were granted patta through proposal dated 2.1.1997 and the patta was approved on 26.2.1997 by Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of 60 allottees out of 84. According to the petitioners out of 60 allottees, so many are ineligible, as such, their patta are to be cancelled. Complaints were made by private persons for cancellation on the ground that patta is based on fraud, accordingly, a Case No.15 of 1997-98, under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was registered before Additional Collector. The Gaon Sabha supported the patta granted to the patta holders, accordingly, Additional Collector vide order dated 21.1.1999 dismissed the application filed under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but liberty was given to make a further enquiry in respect to ineligible persons. Against the order dated 21.1.1999, the revision was allowed by Additional Commissioner. Revision filed by petitioners against the order of Additional Commissioner was pending before the Board of Revenue. A fresh patta cancellation proceeding has been initiated by private complainant / petitioners after 14 years from 26.2.1997, which has been registered as Case No.D2014117300648 (Phool Singh v. Pushpa & Others), under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act and Additional Collector vide order dated 28.11.2014 cancelled the allotment dated 2.1.1997 / 26.2.1997 in respect of 31 allottees out of 60. Against the order dated 28.11.2014, allottees, Pushpa Devi & Others filed Revision No.6 of 2014-15 (Pushpa Devi & Others v. Phool Singh & Others), under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was allowed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut setting aside the order dated 15.4.2015 on the ground that proceedings are time barred due to provisions contained under Section 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the same is hit by principle of res-judicata. Petitioners challenged the order dated 15.4.2015 through Revision No.81 of 2015 (Computerized Case No.C201511000000081), under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.5.2022, hence this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 13.5.2022 passed in different revision by the Board of Revenue, order dated 15.4.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner in Revision No.6/ 2014-15 as well as to affirm the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Additional Collector, the other reliefs were also claimed in the writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Additional Collector vide order dated 28.11.2014 has rightly cancelled the patta of 31 allottees exercising jurisdiction, under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that fraud vitiates the illegal proceedings, as such, the illegal and fraudulent patta was rightly cancelled by Additional