Allahabad High Court
Ramji Lal vs District Magistrate And 4 Others on 23 July, 2019
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23966 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramji Lal Respondent :- District Magistrate And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard.
It appears that proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, petitioner sought benefit of sub-section 4 of the said section, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste landless agricultural labourer in occupation on plot no. 714/2 of area 0.190 hectares for the past 12 years. The proceedings were initiated on 31.01.2011.
The notice in form under Section 49-A was issued and after hearing the parties a finding was returned that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of sub-section 4. The notice in Form 49-A was withdrawn and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of a suit for establishing his right.
Still not satisfied the petitioner preferred a revision which has been dismissed hence, this writ petition.
The first prayer made in this writ petition reads as follows:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari to modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent no. 1 by holding the entire proceedings as not maintainable and being without jurisdiction."
Perusal of the revisional order reveals that the land in question was comprised in a Town area from the year 1973. A notification issued in this regard was filed before the revisional court by the Nagar Panchayat which had contested proceedings.
A categorical finding had also been returned that the land in question was governed not by the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but by the provisions of Municipalities Act, 1916.
This finding is disputed by counsel for the petitioner who submits that even if the land falls within a Town area, the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would continue to apply to it. Even if, the submission of counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same shall not improve his case, further because the petitioner is claiming the benefit of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which reads as follows:-
"[(4-F) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before [May 13, 2007] and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and [he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in that land.]"
A bare perusal of the provision extracted above clearly shows that the benefit thereunder can only be granted against the Gaon Sabha and not any other local authority. Therefore, even if all the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act continue to apply on the land in question, post 1973, when this land became part of the Town Area, the petitioner will not be entitled any benefit of sub-section 4 (F) of Section 122B of the Act.
However, there is no material on record to show that the finding returned in the revisional order that the land in question was comprised in a Town area, is any way vitiated.
Such being the case, the proceeding under Section 122B of the Act initiated on the report of the Lekhpal, was clearly without jurisdiction, therefore, also was the orders passed, therein.
Under the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby allowed. Both the orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside and it is held that the proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act initiated against the petitioner were wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the orders passed therein are also non-est. Order Date :- 23.7.2019 sweta