SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(All) 387

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashok Bhushan, J.
Rajeshwar Upadhyay, son of Sri Ramdhari Upadhyay
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 5284 of 2004
Decided On : 27 February 2004
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 5284 Of 2004

Advocates Appeared:
BISHRAM TIWARI, G.SINGH, M.G.SHARMA, S.K.MISHRA,

The eligibility criteria for housing site allotment under Rule 115-M of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, are not applicable to abadi sites covered by Rule 115-L, which deals with abadi sites for preferential categories.

Headnote:

LAND REFORMS - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 122-C (3), 122-C (6), 122-C (8) - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS RULES, 1952 - RULE 115-L, 115-M - HOUSING SITE ALLOTMENT - ELIGIBILITY - PREFERENCE - REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his housing site allotment under Section 122-C (6) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, claiming eligibility under Rule 115-M of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Rule 115-M applies to abadi sites other than those covered by Rule 115-L, which deals with abadi sites for preferential categories. Since the petitioner's allotment fell under Rule 115-L, the eligibility criteria in Rule 115-M were not applicable.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was eligible for housing site allotment under Rule 115-M of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952? 2. Whether the revision against the Collector's order under Section 122-C (6) of the Act was maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 115-M applies to abadi sites other than those covered by Rule 115-L, which deals with abadi sites for preferential categories. The petitioner's allotment fell under Rule 115-L, so the eligibility criteria in Rule 115-M were not applicable. 2. Section 122-C (8) of the Act makes orders passed under Section 122-C (6) final and not subject to revision under Section 333 of the Act.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bishram Tewari, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 6 and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15th November, 1996 passed by respondent No. 3 land the order dated 24th September 2003 passed by respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) A lease of housing site was allotted to the petitioner in Plot No. 250 area. 02 decimal. An application under Section 122-C (6) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by Gaon Sabha praying for cancellation of the lease. Notice was issued to which petitioner filed his reply. The Collector vide his order dated 15th November, 1996 held that petitioner is not eligible person entitled for lease. Finding was recorded that petitioner is running a shop and is not agricultural labourer. Against the order dated 15th November, 1996, petitioner filed a revision in the revisional Court. The revision was dismissed on merits on 27th October, 1999. Against the order dated 27th October, 1999, the petitioner filed a review application which was allowed on 1st December, 1999. Copy of the order dated1th December, 1999 has been filed as annexure-8 to the writ petition. An application was filed to recall the order dated 1st December, 1999 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003. The Additional commissioner by the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003 set-aside the order dated 1st december, 1999 and restored the earlier order dated 27th October, 1999, The Additional commissioner also recorded a finding that revision was dismissed on 27th October, 1999 and thereafter without hearing the Gaon Sabha, order dated 1st December, 1999 was passed. Challenging the above orders, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order contended that petitioner was eligible person for allotment and the view taken by the courts below is erroneous. The, counsel for the, petitioner placed reliance on Rule 115-M of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms rules, 1952 and contended that under sub clause (c) any other person residing in the village is eligible for allotment. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that while passing the order the Collector has not taken into consideration the report of Tahsildar.

( 5 ) I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 15th november, 1996 under Section 122-C (6) off U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act holding that petitioner was not eligible person for allotment of housing site. The Collector has also taken into consideration the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 12th November, 1996 forwarded by the Tahsildar on 13th November, 1996 to the effect that petitioner after making wall and tin shed is running a shop. In the application filed under Section 122-C (6), the case of gaon Sabha was that the hand is recorded as Khalihan which could not have been allotted. In the objection filed to the application, the petitioners specific case was that total area of Plot No. 250 was 0. 170 are in which by an order dated 30th September, 1991 passed by Sub Divisional officer area of 0. 06 are was deleted from Khalihan and recorded as abadi under clause 6 (2 ). Reference of another order dated 16th September, 1990 of Sub Divisional Officer was also made by which 0. 008 are land of Plot No. 250 was deleted from Khalihan and made open for allotment. The application was filed by the Gaon Sabha under Section 12c (6) C (6) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Collector recorded a finding that petitioner is not eligible person. The said finding has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is eligible person within the meaning of Rule 115-M. According to Section 122-C (3)of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, p













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top