Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SMT. SHYAMO DEVI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THR. SECRETARY – Respondent
C.A. No.-005539-005539 - 2012
The court established that administrative powers for land cancellation must be exercised within a reasonable time, despite no specific limitation being prescribed, and that allegations of fraud must be substantiated.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Sections 122-C and 132 - Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging cancellation of land allotment - The High Court upheld the Additional Collector's order stating that no limitation applies for cancellation proceedings initiated suo moto - The writ petitioners contended that the proceedings were initiated after 13 years, arguing that such delay is unreasonable. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Limitation in Administrative Actions - The court emphasized that while no specific limitation is prescribed under Section 122-C(6), the exercise of jurisdiction must occur within a reasonable time, as established in prior case law. (Paras 12-14)
(C) Fraud in Land Allotment - The court found no evidence of fraud in the allotment process, stating that the allegations of irregularities were not substantiated. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners were allotted land designated as Panchayat Ghar in 1994, but after 13 years, the authorities sought to cancel the allotment, claiming it was irregular. The petitioners argued that the cancellation was barred by limitation. (Paras 4-10)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the cancellation proceedings initiated after 13 years were unreasonable and that the allegations of fraud were not substantiated, thus quashing the impugned orders. (Paras 17-19)
Issues: The main issues included whether the cancellation proceedings were barred by limitation and whether there was evidence of fraud in the allotment process. (Paras 12-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while no limitation is specified for cancellation under Section 122-C(6), such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time, and the absence of evidence for fraud invalidated the cancellation. (Paras 12-18)
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned orders set aside.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioners or petitioners’) challenging the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Revision No.68 of 2008-09 came to be dismissed and said order came to be upheld for the reason that the revision Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2024.05.16 15:44:34 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified petition is not maintainable and consequently the order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector holding that proceedings for cancellation of the patta could be started at any time came to be upheld.
2. By our order dated 13.03.2024, we had made it clear that since none had appeared on behalf of the appellants (writ petitioners) no further adjournment would be granted and in the interest of justice one last opportunity came to be extended to the writ petitioners. However, even today when the matter is called in the second round none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Hence, we have proceeded to examine the case on merits by considering the pleas advanced in the appeal, grounds urged therein and the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents’ counsel.
3. Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
4. In the year 1969-70, the khasra plot No.185 in Rampur Kedhar Village, UP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion of the said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant Collector and subsequently different plots of land in said survey number came to be allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners under Section 122-C (i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereafter referred to as ‘UPZALR Act’ for short).
5. After 13 years, the Secretary/Lekhpal of Bhumi Prabandhank Samiti, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar opining thereunder that plot No.185 had been originally designated as Panchayat Ghar and classified under Section 132 of UPZALR Act and accordingly recorded in the revenue records, which had been unlawfully allotted for residential use. Hence, he proposed for cancellation of the allotments made and to take possession of the land from all the allottees including writ petitioners. The Tehsildar in turn forwarded a proposal to the District Magistrate for cancellation of the allotment vide communication dated 18.06.2007. This, resulted in show cause notices dated 05.07.2007 being issued to the writ petitioners and same was duly replied by them by filing objections on 04.10.2007. An application came to be filed by the petitioners to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, since the proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment contending inter alia that within a period of 3 years the proceedings ought to have been initiated. The Additional Collector by order dated 07.02.2008 was of the view that action initiated being suo moto, no limitation has been provided under Section 122-C (6) of UPZALR Act; that during the consolidation proceedings the land had been specified “Panchayat Ghar”
and it was covered under Section 132 (6) of the UPZALR Act; the allotment of land being irregular and no time limit having been fixed for cancellation of allotment made under Section 122-C (6). Hence, he arrived at a conclusion that there is no limitation fixed under the Act and proceeded to reject the application filed.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petition came to be filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be entertained on merits and dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two (2) orders, the writ petitioners challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 which came to be dismissed on two grounds namely the revision petition fi
