Allahabad High Court
Hari Chand And Another vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 21 January, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10421 Judgment Reserved On : 29.07.2024 Judgment Delivered On : 21.01.2025 Court No. - 68 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 39710 of 2003 Petitioner :- Hari Chand And Another Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Srivastava,Ayub Khan,Rahul Verma,Rajesh Tripathi,S.K.Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.C.Srivastava,Anil Kumar,Bhola Nath Yadav,Chandan Sharma,Hira Lal Singh(Kushwaha),Kamal Singh,R P Singh,Ram Surat Saroj,Rohan Gupta,S.D. Kautilya,S.K. Nigam,S.K. Rao,S.K.Pathak,Satish Chandra Mishra,Shri Krishna Mishra,Somesh Khare,V.K. Singh Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anubhav Sinha and Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Somesh Khare along with Sri S. K. Kumar and Sri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, learned Standing Counsel representing the State Respondents and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, the Land Management Committee concerned.
The writ petition has been filed questioning the orders dated 03.11.2000 and 08.05.2003 (Annexure Nos. 3 & 5) to the writ petition respectively passed by the Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad in Revision No. 64(2) of 1997-98 under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act whereby and whereunder allowing the Revision vide order dated 03.11.2000 and rejecting the recall application registered as Case No. 49 of 2001-02 as not maintainable vide order dated 08.05.2003.
The dispute relates to the allotment of land by the Land Management Committee of Village Gulawati, Pargana Dankaur, District Bulandshahar, now Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No. 3 in favour of 164 persons of the Village vide allotment order dated 15.12.1989. The allotment is stated to have been approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No. 2 on 10.05.1990.
The writ petitioners, who are the villagers of the village concerned aggrieved by the allotment of the land in favour of the Respondent No. 4 to 164 along with other aggrieved persons filed a complaint on 01.06.1990 which was registered as Case No. 72 of 1991 before the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar seeking cancellation of the said allotment on the ground that the allotments were irregular, not in accordance with the rules and had been made in favour of the ineligible persons. The complaint case registered as Case No. 72 of 1991 was allowed vide order dated 04.06.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar.
Against the order dated 04.06.1994, the Respondent No. 4 to 150 preferred a Revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut registered as Revision No. 88 of 1994-95 (Balvir Vs. Satvir and others) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.06.1998, holding that the allotment had been made against the provisions of Rule 173 (Kha), 174 and 175 of the UPZA & LR Rules 1952. Aggrieved by the rejection of their Revision vide order dated 25.06.1998 the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 preferred a Second Revision before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No. 64(2) of 1997-98 (Bali Ram and others Vs. Satyabir and others). The Board of Revenue in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without considering the aspect that a second Revision by the same persons was not maintainable, proceeded to entertain the second Revision and allowed the same vide order dated 03.11.2000. The Recall Application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 03.11.2000 was also rejected by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 19.01.2001. The Review Application dated 22.08.2002 registered as Case No. 49 of 2001-02 was also rejected vide order dated 08.05.2003.
Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board of Revenue at Allahabad committed manifest illegality in passing the impugned orders. He submits that :-
(i) The Board of Revenue erred in law in entertaining the Second Revision in exercise of powers under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 in view of the express bar contained in sub Section 2 of Section 333 thereof.
(ii) The allotment in favour of the Respondent No. 4 to 150 had been made in utter violation of the provisions of Rule 173 (Kha), 174 and 175 of the UPZA & LR Rules 1952 and had rightly been cancelled by the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar. The Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad entertained the Revision and allowed the same on the ground that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and such power vested only in the Collector in view of the law laid down by this Court in 1996 RD 190 and 1999 RD 699 in complete ignorance of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (105) RD 1.
(iii) The Board of Revenue manifestly erred in granting indulgence to the Respondent/Allottees on the ground that the petitioners failed to demonstrate how they were aggrieved by the allotment ignoring the settled principle that the allotments were made by playing fraud and that the petitioners being the residents of the village could very well raise objections against the illegal and irregular allotments of the Goan Sabha Land by the Land Management Committee.
(iv) The Board of Revenue erred in rejecting the recall and review applications.
It is, accordingly, submitted that the orders impugned are patently illegal and deserve to be set aside. The writ petition is liable to be allowed as prayed.
Per contra, Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 i.e. the allottees has vehemently opposed the writ petition and supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order of the Additional Collector cancelling the allotment as also the order of the Additional Commissioner upholding the same in Revision. Sri Somesh Khare has laid much emphasis on the ground that the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act to have maintain the complaint against the allotment made in favour of the answering respondents giving rise to the present proceedings.
It is contended that the petitioners are not persons aggrieved/or falling within the category "of a person aggrieved" as stipulated by the rigors of Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950. The Petitioner No. 1 has been shown to have substantial land holdings in his name bearing Khata No. 540 and is recorded as its Sankramaniya Bhumidhar. The writ petitioners are not landless persons and do not qualify in the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197 enabling them to become a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act. They have made no avernment either at the time of filing the complaint or the instant writ petition that they are entitled for allotment of patta by the Gaon Sabha.
Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 25 (All.), decision in Writ-C No. 36068 of 2004, decision in Writ Petition No. 44338 of 2006 (Kanhai (now deceased) and others Vs. State of U. P. and others, decided on 02.03.2012, decision in Writ-C No. 32252 of 2022 (Awadhesh Kumar versus State of U. P.) decided on 15.02.2023, decision in Misc. Single No. 27989 of 2016 (Ram Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and others) decided on 25.11.2016 as also the decision in Writ Petition No. 64061 of 2016 (Hari Shanker Kushwaha and others Vs. State of U. P. through Secretary, Revenue Department, Lucknow and others) decided on November 24, 2017 to buttress the point that the writ petitioners cannot be termed as "persons aggrieved" so as to maintain the complaint and consequently the present writ petition, having not suffered from any legal injury. It is accordingly submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue is just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition as framed deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records. From the submissions advanced by the learned respective counsels for the parties the following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition:-
(a) whether the allotment in favour of the allottees i.e. respondent no. 4 to 150 suffers from the vice of being contrary to the provisions of Rule 173 (Kha), 174 and 175 of the U.P.Z.A. & LR Rules, 1952 and had been rightly cancelled by the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar.
(b) whether the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar was within his powers to cancel the allotment in favour of the allottees in exercise of powers u/s 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950.
(c) whether the Second Revision u/s 333(1) of the UPZA & LR Act before the Board of Revenue UP at Allahabad was maintainable.
(d) whether the complaint at the instance of the writ petitioners against the allotment made by the Land Management Committee in favour of the allottees i.e. respondent no. 1 to 150 as also the instant writ petition is maintainable on the ground of locus-standi.
The parties are on common ground as regards the fact that the Land Management Committee of village Gulawali, Pargana Dankaur, Bulandshahr, vide its resolution dated 15.12.1989 allotted land in favour of 164 persons and such allotment was got approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned vide order dated 10.05.1990 approving the allotment in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150. A complaint against the allotment was filed on 01.06.1990 against the allotment, which was registered as Case No. 72 of 1991. The Additional Collector, Bulandshahar, vide its order dated 4.6.1994 allowed the complaint and set aside the allotment. A perusal of the order of the Additional Collector reveals that several anomalies were found in the proceedings of the allotment and it was concluded that the entire proceedings were illegal and irregular. The relevant portion of the order of the Additional Collector dated 4.6.1994 is being quoted here under:-
"eSus i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa fo}ku vf/koDrkvks ds rdksZ dks luus ds ckn bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gwW loZ izFke rks vkoaVu i=koyh ns[kus ls ;g Li"V gS fd vkdkj i= 57&01 ij ijxukf/kdkjh dh Lohd`rh ugh gSA bl izdkj fu;e 172] 173 ,oa 174 dh vogsyuk dh x;h gS tks fd eSuMsVjh gSA bl izdkj vkoaVu vfu;fer ,oa voS/kkfud gks tkuk gSA 74 izfroknh (vkoaVh) ckgj ds crk;s gSA blds laca/k esa ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugh gS fd ftlls ;g Li"V gks fd og xkao ds fuoklh gS ek= ;g dg nsus ls fd oksVj fyLV esa uke u gksus ls xkao dk fuoklh ugh jg tkrk gS] xyr gSA vkse izdk'k o /keZohj iz/kku ds lxs yM+ds o eukst dihy o izoh.k iq=x.k vkseizdk'k o vtc flag eukst] eksj/ot o doj flag iq=x.k /keZohj iz/kku ds lxs ikS= gS ftUgs vkoaVu fd;k x;k gSA blh izdkj vU; cgqr ls O;fDr lnL;ksa ds iq= firk o HkkbZ gS ftudh dksbZ btktr vkoaVu gsrq ftykf/kdkjh ls ugh yh x;h gSA j.kthr iq= eulq[k rks xzkelHkk xqfyLrk dk iz/kku gS ftls Lo;a ckcw flag iz/kku us Lohdkj dj vius tokc esa fd;k gSA T;knkrj vkoaVh tuin xkft;kckn ds gSA vkSj iz/kku ls laca/kh gS rglhynkj us viuh vk[;k esa ;g Hkh Li"V fy[kk gS fd iou o Hkh"k.k iq=x.k nsojkt ukokfyxks ds lca/k esa tks fooj.k fd;k x;k gS mlds laca/k esa dksbZ ,slk Bksl lk{; izfroknhx.k }kjk ugh fn;k x;k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gks fd og ukokfyx ugh gSA iz/kku us ftlus ;g vkoaVu fd;k gS Lo;a ekuk gS fd dqN ik= O;fDr vkoaVu ls 'ks"k jg x;s gS dqN xkao ls vU; xkao fuokfl;ks dks iVVk gks x;k gS rFkk dqN ukokfyxks dks Hkh vkoaVu gks x;k gSA bl izdkj bl vkoaVu esa euekus The above findings clearly show that the allotment proceedings in favour of the respondent no. 4 to 150 were in violation of the Rules 173 (Kha), 174 and 175 of the UPZA & LR Rules, 1952. The said findings were upheld in Revision u/s 333(1) filed by the allottees Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, Division Meerut. The findings call for no interference by this Court. The question no. (a) is answered accordingly.
Learned counsel for the answering Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 has vehemently argued that the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar was not competent to exercise his jurisdiction u/s 198(4) and it was the Collector, Bulandshahar alone, who was competent to cancel the allotment. It is urged that in such view of the matter, the order of the Additional Collector cannot sustain. This Court is not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the contesting Respondent Nos. 4 to 150. The issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and Others reported in 2008 (105) RD 1, wherein it has been categorically held that powers and functions of Collector including exercise of powers u/s 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be exercised by the Additional Collector. The question no. (b) also stands decided accordingly.
Now coming to the question no. (c) regarding maintainability of the Second Revision by the Respondent-Allottees Nos. 4 to 150 before the Board of Revenue is concerned, in the opinion of the Court the Second Revision was barred in view of the express bar contained in section 333(2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Admittedly, the 1st Revision being Revision No. 88 of 1994-95 filed at the instance of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 had been rejected vide order dated 25/6/1998. The Second Revision No. 64 (2) of 1997-98 before the Board of Revenue was clearly not maintainable. Question No. (c) answered accordingly.
Now coming to the Question No. (d), Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the answering respondent i.e. allottees Nos. 4 to 150 has laid much stress upon the fact that the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198(4). Placing reliance upon the decisions referred to herein before it has been urged that the complaint at the instance of the petitioners and other aggrieved persons was not maintainable and consequently the present proceedings are also not maintainable and the Board of Revenue was completely justified in allowing the Revision and the said order does not call for any interference by this Court.
Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent Nos. 4 to 150 placing reliance upon the case of Kanhai (now deceased) and others versus State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44338 of 2006, decided on 2.3.2012 submits that A person who seeks to question the allotment has to show that he had preferential right for the said allotment. Seeking cancellation of allotment order without showing preference cannot be questioned except on the intervention of the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner claims that the land has been wrongly allotted to the respondents without claiming that they have right to seek allotment of the said land under the Act. Rules with regard to locus-standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legal protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority. Aggrieved person must show that he had suffered a legal grievance against whom a decision which has been pronounced which has wrongfully refused him of something, which he had a right to demand. It is within this precincts that the aggrieved person can seek redressal of his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Relying upon the case of Ram Kumar versus State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/3147/2016, he further submits as under:
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved person.
And person means only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course,enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right.
13. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.
14. Further, a "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised."
Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel controverting the arguments of Shri Somesh Khare submits that the complaint as also the instant writ petition is maintainable as in respect of the public property of Gaon Sabha any one can initiate the proceedings or challenge the order settling such land of the Gaon Sabha with private persons. Regards may be had to the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Ram Ziyawan and Others Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur and Others reported in 2014 (124) RD 219. Further in Nathai Lal Dube Vs. District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar reported in 2000 (4) AWC 2752 it has been held that a writ petition by a member of a Gaon Sabha raising allegations against the action of the Gaon Sabha in allotting land in violation of the norms can be assailed before a writ Court.
In the opinion of the Court, under normal circumstances a complainant may not be entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he cannot be judged as a person aggrieved. However, the locus of a person to maintain a writ petition before the High Court has to be judged in the context of the statutory provisions and the facts of the case. There cannot be any hard and fast rule that in all cases a complainant cannot maintain a writ petition. In the case at hand, the Court finds that the allotment of the land by the Land Management Committee in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 was in complete violation of the Rules of allotment prescribed. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 obtained allotment in their favour by misstatement of facts. This Court cannot shut its eye to the aforesaid facts. In the opinion of the Court there is a public element involved and the complaint as also the instant writ petition is maintainable. The Question No. (d) is decided accordingly.
In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 03.11.2000 and 08.05.2003 (Annexure Nos. 3 & 5) respectively, passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, are set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.01.2025 vs