The Collector can refer matters under the Land Revenue Act even after dropping proceedings, ensuring due process and opportunity for parties to present their case.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4.

2. The order under challenge is dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration) in proceedings initiated at the behest of the private respondents under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and while dismissing the said proceedings there are certain observations which has drawn the irk of the petitioner prompting him to file a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and the revision has also been dismissed by means of order dated 29.05.2024.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and has been in the family since the time of his forefathers. It is urged that it is an ancestral property and the name of the grand father of the petitioner was recorded in the Khatauni of 1356 and 1359 fasli years. However, sometime in the decade of 1970, the said land came to be recorded as Banjar and Usar. Upon commencement of consolidation operations the forefather of the petitioner had filed his objections which was upheld thereafter the said entry was corrected and it also was reflected in CH Form 41 and 45 and thereafter it has been with the petitioner without any demur or challenge from any person. It is at the later stage in the year 2013-14 that the private respondents raised an issue regarding the land belonging to a public utility and the lease granted to the petitioner was invalid, accordingly the same be cancelled and in the alternative, the land be leased to the private respondents.

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has filed his objections contested the proceedings with the preliminary objection that the land in question has never been leased out to the petitioner rather it is a Bhumidhari land which has been in their possession since the time of the forefather and as such the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act 1950 were per se without jurisdiction and cannot proceed.

5. It is noticing that the aforesaid conflicting stand of the respective parties, the Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow by means of order dated 24.09.2014 dropped the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act 1950. However, it made certain observations regarding the stand and the documents filed by the petitioner and referred the matter to be considered under Section 33/39 of the U.P. L.R. Act 1901 as the Collector found that the entries which was relied upon by the petitioner were suspicious. It is being aggrieved against this portion of the order there are certain observations made that led the petitioner to prefer the revision which needless to say has been dismissed by means of order dated 29.05.2024 and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 could not be initiated at the behest of the private respondents especially when the land in question was not a lease land. Once the Additional Collector had come to this conclusion that the land was not leased to the petitioner and he decided to drop the proceedings. In this context, it was not open for the Collector to have made any observations in respect of the entries or the documents furnished by the petitioner to refer the matter under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901.

7. It is further submitted that this error which was committed by the Additional Collector has been repeated by the Revisional Authority and in the aforesaid circumstance, the said part of the order deserves to be set aside.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

9. Prima facie, what this Court finds that the case of the petitioner relati