The court established that powers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delays invalidate such actions.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Verender Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.5, who has appeared through caveat.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned Revisional Order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, District -Gonda and impugned order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Respondent No.3 Additional District Collector (Judicial), District -Balrampur (by mistake in the prayer clause it has been mentioned as 'Respondent No.4'), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 122-C (6) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1950') has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Respondent No.5 was not eligible to be allotted the land by the Gram Sabha for the purpose of construction of house but being the son of the Pradhan the land was allotted in his favour on 10.06.1994. The petitioner had filed an objection under Section 122-C(6) of the Act, 1950 before the Respondent No.3 which was dismissed by impugned order dated 23.10.2017 without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner against the allotment of land in favour of Respondent No.5.

4. It is further submitted that against the said order the petitioner had preferred a revision which was dismissed / rejected by impugned order dated 12.03.2024, mainly on two grounds, firstly that there was delay of 21 years in filing the objection under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, 1950 and secondly, against the order passed under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, 1950 a revision is not maintainable.

5. At this stage, learned Standing counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the orders passed by Respondent No.3 and 2 respectively. The application for cancellation of the Patta in favour of Respondent No.5 was preferred by the petitioner after the delay of about more than 21 years and as per law settled by this Court in the case of Dhankali v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2020) 2 ALJ, page 63, wherein this court after placing reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the matter with the finding that the action taken after about 12 years was beyond the prescribed period and cannot be turned as reasonable time and dismissed the writ petition.

6. Learned Standing counsel has submitted that against the order passed under Section 122-C (6) of Act, 1950, no revision is maintainable under Section 333 or 333A of the Act, 1950 and has placed reliance of the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dhani and Others v. Additional Collector F & R and others reported in 2019 (4) ADJ, 668.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had filed a case under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, 1950 after the delay of 21 years and that too, without explaining the same and as per the law settled in the case of Dhankali (supra), the relevant paras are quoted hereinbelow:

"10. A plain reading of the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 122-C make it clear that the Collector is empowered to exercise suo motu powers or on an application filed by any aggrieved person to proceed to cancel the allotment if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular. The question whether the Collector is empowered to take a decision without any limitation and in infinity is to be considered by this Court.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another vs. D. Narsing Rao and others, 2015 3 SCC 695 while considering a similar power conferred under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation held that whenever a power is conferred w