Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Singh And Others vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Others on 27 January, 2020
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 51081 of 2012 Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Alld. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Yadav,Bhupendra Nath Singh,Devendra Pratap Singh,Jitendra Rana,Naveen Yadav,Yogendra Singh Bohra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Mahesh Chand,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Civil Misc. (Transposition) Application No.9 of 2019 This is an application for transposition of respondent no.35 as petitioner no.23 in the writ petition. The affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Cause shown is sufficient.
The application is allowed.
In view of the facts written in the affidavit, the name of respondent no.35 be impleaded/transposited as petitioner no.23. Order on writ petition Heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and 5. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following main prayer :-
"I. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2012 passed by Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad in Revision No.22 of 1995-96; Karan Singh Versus Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others, judgment and order dated 29.9.1995 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No.137 of 1994-95 and judgment and order dated 27.5.1994 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Buland Shahr, in Patta Cancellation Case No.156 of 1994 ; State Versus Kanwar Singh and others under section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. (Annexures Nos. 13, 11 and 9 respectively to this Petition).
II. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from agricultural land allotted to them by LMC of Gaon Sabha Bharana, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Buland Shahr, under section 195 of the Act and approval of Sub Divisional Magistrate has been accorded for the same."
Vide order 3.10.2012 respondents were directed to file counter affidavit.
It is admitted between the learned counsel for the parties present that identical orders were challenged by one Iliyas along-with other persons before this Court by filing Writ B No.41754 of 2012 (Iliyas And others Vs. Board of Revenue and others). The aforesaid writ petition was finally allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 12.9.2016. The order dated 12.9.2016 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"By the order dated 16.8.2016 three weeks and no more time is allowed to the counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed.
In spite of written information being given to counsel for the respondent, he is not present in the Court.
Heard Sri Y. S. Bohra for the petitioners.
The writ petition has been filed against the order of Collector dated 27.5.1994 canceling the patta of the petitioners dated 23.4.1993 and the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 29.9.1995 and Board of Revenue , UP dated 19.7.2012 dismissing the revision as well as second revision of the petitioners.
By the resolution dated 28.8.1992, Iliyas, petitioner-1 was allotted 1 bigha land, Karan Singh, petitioner-2 was allotted 1 bigha 10 biswa land , Smt. Munesh, petitioner-3 was allotted 1 bigha land, Smt Shashi, petitioner-4 was allotted 1 bigha 10 biswa land and Smt Bhagwati, petitioner - 5 was allotted 1 bigha land. Zile Singh (now represented by petitioners - 6/1 to 6/6) was also allotted 1 bigha 18 biswa land.
The resolution was confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer and patta was granted to the petitioners. On the application of Baleswar , Mahendra, Hari Ram, Gopi Chandra, Liley, Rati and Lila respondents - 5 to 11 , the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 was initiated against the petitioners before the Collector. The Collector after hearing the parties found that agenda of the meeting was circulated on 25.8.1992 and meeting was conducted and resolution was passed on 28.8.1992. Therefore seven days time as provided under Rule 173 of UP Z. A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 was not given after circulation of agenda. He further found that allottees were having land and the ladies were also having land in the names of their husband. Thus they were not eligible for allotment of patta. On this finding the application was allowed and the patta of the petitioners dated 28.8.1992 was cancelled. The revision as well as second revision filed by the petitioners were also dismissed.
I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the records.
The petitioners have filed a copy of the agenda as Annexure-1 to the writ petition which shows that the agenda was circulated on 20.8.1992 and not on 25.8.1992 as mentioned in the order of Collector. Thus the finding in this respect is incorrect. In the present case no counter affidavit has been filed either by State of UP or by Gaon Sabha or by private respondents as such the agenda filed by the petitioners is accepted. There is no violation of provision of Rule 173 of the Rules. Similarly the petitioners have disclosed the land allotted to them as well as land held by them in paragraph 16 and 17 of the writ petition. If the land allotted to the petitioners is taken along with the land held by the petitioners then also area does not exceed from more than 1.260 hectare and the patta on this ground is not liable to be cancelled as under Section 198 (1) (e) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 area of the land together with the area allotted should not exceed 1.260 hectare. Thus both the reasons given by the Collector for cancellation of patta, are incorrect and liable to be set aside.
In the results, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Collector dated 27.5.1994, Additional Commissioner dated 29.9.1995 and Board of Revenue, UP dated 19.7.2012 are set aside. The patta of the petitioners , is hereby upheld."
I have also perused the record of the writ petition.
It is admitted between the parties present that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical as subject matter of Writ B No.41754 of 2012 (supra). In the circumstances, petitioners are also entitled for the same relief.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and allowed. The orders of the Collector dated 27.5.1994 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Buland Shahr, 29.9.1995 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut and order dated 19.7.2012 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad are set aside. The patta of the petitioners is hereby upheld. Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Pramod Tripathi