Land designated as pasture cannot be leased unless extraordinary circumstances exist; strict procedural compliance is essential for dereservation.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Impleadment Application No.55 of 2021

Heard, learned counsel for applicant (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) and Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for applicant as well as grounds mentioned in application which are sufficient to allow the application for impleadment and accordingly, allowed and it is directed that applicant be impleaded as petitioner No.2 in memo of party. Amended cause title be filed and necessary correction be carried out.

Order on memo of petition

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA and Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The present case is arising out of a proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of land situated in village Soharakha Jahirabad, Tehsil- Dadri, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, which was reserved and recorded as pasture land and was used by public at large of village for said purpose since long time.

3. A case was set up by Gram Sabha, petitioner No.1, in writ petition that proceedings for allotment of patta to contesting respondents i.e. respondent No.4 to 124 was not adopted under a due process that neither Munnadi nor Agenda was prepared according to Rules 173 to 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The resolution dated 26.10.1995 was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer by three different orders dated 15.01.1996, 14.03.1996 and 18.03.1996, whereas in normal circumstance, the resolution has to be approved by one order only. There were other illegalities also.

4. A case is also set up that land was not handed over to contesting respondents in pursuance of resolution which is also recorded in impugned order dated 09.06.2003 passed by Board of Revenue and since by an order dated 26.08.2003 the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue was stayed, therefore, there is not much dispute that in pursuance of above referred resolution possession was not handed over to any of its beneficiaries including the contesting respondents.

5. The proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was allowed and patta granted to contesting respondents was cancelled on 27.10.1997, however, in a revision petition filed by them, said order was recalled and by an order dated 22.06.1998 passed by Commissioner, matter was remitted to decide afresh.

6. On remand after hearing both parties at length by a judgment dated 04.01.2002 the approval and patta was cancelled on ground that land in dispute was recorded as a pasture land which cannot be leased out as well as there were various irregularities in procedure adopted. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

7. The aforesaid judgment was challenged at the behest of contesting respondent by way of filing a revision petition which was allowed by impugned order dated 09.06.2003 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, above referred order dated 09.06.2003 was challenged at the behest of Gram Sabha and since now land is being resumed in favour of newly impleaded petitioner No.2 i.e. NOIDA, their stand is also considered.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 vehemently submitted that land in dispute is a pasture land which cannot be a part of lease for allotment of patta to landless persons. Learned counsel further submitted that Board of Revenue has also not disputed that land in dispute was a pasture land and has noted that said nature of land was changed on basis of resolution adopted by Gram Sabha, however, no