Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh Shishodia S/O Sri Gajendra ... vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 30 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)AWC380
Author: S.K. Singh
Bench: S.K. Singh
JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Kunwar R.C. Singh in support of this petition. No body appeared for the respondents.
2. Challenge in this petition is the order passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner and that of the Additional Collector dated 24.11.1983, 10.6.1983 and 13.01.1982 (Annexures XI, X and VIII) respectively.
3. Before adverting to the arguments, notice of facts in brief, will suffice.
4. Petitioner claims to have received a portion of Plot No. 729 and 731 situated in Agrawala Mandi Tateeri Tehsil Baghpat, district Meerut, in view of allotment made/approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.02.1980 pursuant to which on 04.09.1980, he deposited Rs. 326.80 and then he claims to have raised construction. For the aforesaid allotment, petitioner claims to have filed application on 27.09.19:79 on the ground that he is residing at present in Tateeri Meerut and he has no land for his residence and therefore, he be allotted suitable area. On that application, Lekhpal, Supervisor Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar appears to have submitted their reports favouring petitioner and thus, approval of allotment by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 28.02.1980 as noted above. On filing application by respondent for cancellation of the allotment, on various grounds so taken in the application, the Additional Collector proceeded in the matter and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, allotment was ordered be cancelled by order dated 13.01.1982 and that has been affirmed by the additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue and thus, all the three orders are under challenge in this petition.
5. Submission of learned Counsel is that as the town area committed was under suspension, the Prescribed Authority was incharge of the affairs, he after getting report from lower staff allotted the land to the petitioner in which, no illegality can be found. Submission is that petitioner has been validly allotted the laid being entitled for the same which is clear from the reports, so submitted. It was then submitted that even if it is found that allotment in favour of petitioner is illegal, as the petitioner obtained possession and raised some construction, land is to be settled with him on market rate as has been held by this, court in the case of Sukhdeo v. Collector reported in 2007(102) RD 83 and Kishore Singh v. Addl. Collector reported in 2007(102) RD. 303.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter.
7. Before proceeding to deal with the matter, this Court has to observe that the case in hand is a clear case where the petitioner having taken into confidence the administrative authorities, has been able to grab public property/land in most illegal manner and now as alternate argument, he claims its legalisation/settlement on payment of premium.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the land in dispute is the public property/land. In the report of Naib Tehsildar (Annexure 2-C) and in the order dated 28.2.1980 which have been placed on record, there is clear mention that the land is Gaon Sabha land and it is under the provision of UPZA & L.R. Act. There is further mention in all the reports that petitioner may be given land under Rule 115-M of UPZA & L.R. Rules which permits allotment on deposit of amount equal to forty times of the rent of land in the manner and procedure so provided. Thus on the Admitted facts, as the land has been mentioned to be Gaon Sabha land and the provision of Rule 115-M has been quoted/referred in all the reports, this Court will have to notice these provisions before coming to a particular conclusion.
9. Rule 115-M of UPZA & LR Rules permits allotment of the land for construction of building in residential area or for charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industries in a particular order or preference which speaks landless labourer, village artisans etc. In the next category to a bhumidhar, sirdar or assami residing in the village and then to any other person residing in the village. The procedure for making allotment has been given in Rule 115-M of the Rules which provides that the land will be allotted by due publication, by beating the drum in the village about exact location of the site, time and date and the venue of allotment. Then Rule 115-0 comes which clearly provides that maximum limit will be 250 meters.
10. So far as case in hand is concerned, petitioner claims that it has been allotted by the Sub-Divisional Officer after getting report from the lower administrative authorities as the town area committee was under suspension. From the documents as has been brought on record, this has not been made clear that when the land belongs to Gaon Sabha and there is clear mention that the land is under the provision of UPZA & L.R. Act, how and in what circumstances, town area committee came in picture and even it town area committee is said to be competent to allot, the Committee is said to be under suspension, how and in what circumstances, land can be allotted just after taking application from the petitioner and on getting reports without any notice to any body and without any knowledge to other eligible persons. Land in dispute admittedly, is not the private property of the prescribed authority or any administrative authority. It being public property, even if petitioner may be entitled to get the land allotted that has to be done by taking public into confidence i.e. to say by making the factum of allotment known to every body so that other eligibles may also if they so like claim the land for being allotted. There is a clear provision in the Rules as referred above that if there are several claimants then it is to be settled by lottery system. By no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that in the prevailing circumstances there being paucity of accommodation, no body else in the village/town can be inclined to take the land but for the petitioner. At the same time, preference as given in the rules will also be required to be adhered to. There is clear finding of all the three courts that neither any munadl was made nor any publication was made and the factum of allotment was never made to known to any body. There is a further finding that petitioner is not resident of that place which is clear from the khatauni extract so filed in the proceeding which clearly mentions that petitioner is having land in village Sapnawat in district Ghaziabad. There is a further finding that the petitioner is not landless labourer, resident of the village and in fact, he is teacher in High Secondary School, Daula, Meerut and he is Rajput by caste. On these facts, it is crystal clear that all three courts have rightly concurred in taking the view that petitioner was not entitled to get allotment and he obtained allotment by manoeuvring things by exerting pressure on the administrative authorities. The allotment is said to have been made in the year 1980 and immediately thereafter ah application for its cancellation was moved and the order of Additional Collector is dated 13.01.1982 and thus, it is clear that a prompt action was taken against the illegal allotment. It is not a case where allotment has been questioned after a lapse of sufficiently long time. Although petitioner claimed for allotment of an area of 500 meters which is otherwise also not permissible but the fact as has come at various places, that an area of 0-8-15 of plot No. 729 and an area of 0-8-0 of plot No. 731 came to b& allotted. That is further very very unreasonable. The factum of illegal arrangement without resorting any procedure known to law and without any notice/information to any body, if was disapproved/cancelled in quickest possible time, then this Court is not to come to the rescue of such a claimant who has tried to grab public land by a back door process. So far as finding given by all three courts are concerned, they are on the question of facts in which, no illegality of any perversity has been shown to the Court. If finding or fact recorded by all three courts below are accepted, then this Court cannot be in a position to approve the claim of petitioner and thus will have to decline to interfere in the impugned orders.
11. At this stage, alternative claim of petitioner of settling and in the light of two decisions given by this Court, will have to be noticed.
12. On examination of the facts of present case and the facts of cases on which Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel, this Court is of the view that there is clear distinction on facts and thus the decision relied upon have no application to the facts of the present case. So far as the judgment given in the case of Sukhdeo (supra) is concerned, action against unauthorised occupation was taken after about 30 years and therefore, on the facts, this Court exercising equity powers granted relief. So far the judgment in the case of Kishore Singh (supra) is concerned, a finding has been recorded that Navin Parti was made cultivable land and therefore, on the facts of that case considering the hardship, relief was granted by this Court. Otherwise also if this kind of tactics is permitted, then it will be very easy for a mighty person to grab public property by back door process in an illegal manner and then to claim its settlement to get it legalised. This will be clearly arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of principle of natural justice to the public at large. The benefit to which, large number of eligible persons may be entitled cannot be permitted to be given to an individual in" a secret manner without any opportunity of participation to all eligibles. It has been repeatedly said by the Apex Court and this Court that in the matter of public; settlement, it has to be after opportunity of participation to public at large and in the manner so provided. Thus, this Court has to reject the claim of petitioner for settling the land on premium basis as that will be in violation of principle of natural justice as others are to Suffer and that will be laying a bad precedent of granting premium to wrong acts certifying the slogan might is right. We can take judicial notice of the fact that now a days, tendency of encroachment of public land/property is in creasing day by day and thus that has to be checked although on its beginning it elf and if for any reason that could not come to notice at its start then as and when, it comes to the notice of a person authorised/capable to take action in accordance with law. There cannot be any license/premium to a wrong and void act unless it is permitted in law or it could get protection in law.
13. For the reasons given above, this Court is of the view that petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference in the impugned orders by pointing out any illegality. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.