Allahabad High Court
Smt. Chandrawati & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 January, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69592 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Chandrawati & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Brij Raj Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
The Commissioner under the impugned order dated 06.10.2009 has rejected the two revisions filed by the husband and the wife separately and has affirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 04.04.2009 whereunder it was held that regularization of an area of 0.339 hectare alone of plot no. 537 was illegal inasmuch as the total holding of the husband and the wife clubbed together after such regularization works out to 1.597 which was beyond the maximum permissible i.e. 1.265 hectare. It has, therefore, been held that the regularization to the extent of 0.339 hectare of land of plot no. 537 (total area whereof is 0.632 hectare), be deleted from the order of regularization and necessary corrections be made in the revenue records. Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that in proceedings under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act initiated by the husband, an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.09.2002 holding the petitioners may deposit the Lagan of Rs.50/- and the name of Gram Samaj be deleted from Plot No. 537, total area 0.632 hectare and the petitioner be recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. He submits that the order has become final and, therefore, the order impugned is legally not sustainable.
On examination of the records, the Court finds that the suit under Section 229-B proceeded on the regularization order and consequent declaration was issued. However the declaration so made will not in any way save the regularization order which itself was contrary to law inasmuch as the total holding of the husband and the wife worked out to 1.597 hectare. Regularization was, therefore, in excess of that permissible under law i.e. 1.265. The Commissioner has rightly held that the petitioners were not entitled to area of 0.339 which was in excess of the permissible qua Plot No.
537. The Court finds that there is absolutely no illegality in the calculation of the area possessed by the husband and the wife together and further that after regularization the total area was much more than that legally permissible under law. Therefore, the order of regularization has necessarily to be corrected. The impugned order has been passed in the substantial interest of justice and is strictly in accordance with law. Such orders do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is dismissed.
However it is clarified that the order of the Commissioner has to be read in the light of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate whereby 0.332 hectare of land of Plot No. 537 was directed to be recorded in the name of Gram Samaj. The order of the Commissioner be read accordingly. Dated : 06.01.2010 VR/WP-69592/09