Allahabad High Court
The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 19 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15954 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2260 of 2025 Petitioner :- The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Thru. Secy. Mohd. Saqib Siddiqui And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ripu Daman Shahi,Arun Pratap Singh,Saurabh Singh,Suresh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Nafees,Ravi Shanker Tewari,Vishwakant Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Heard Shri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners who appeared along with Shri Arun Pratap Singh, Advocate and Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 who appeared along with Shri Vishwakant Srivastava, Advocate and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No.3662/2023 (Smt. Shyamkali Vs. The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd.).
3. Facts which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present petition, as appears from the record and brought to the notice by the learned counsel for the parties, are as under.
(i) The petitioner no.1 namely Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. (in short 'Samiti'), being owner in possession of gata no.488 area 0.908 hect., situated at Village -Sarai Shekh, Pargana, Tehsil & District - Lucknow instituted the proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code 2006'), registered as Case No.15640 of 2019, computerized case no.D201910460015640 (The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Samiti Vs. State). According to the case set up by the petitioners in this proceeding the area of Gata No.488 was not indicated in the map as per the area indicated in the revenue record. After considering the facts indicated in the case preferred under Section 30 of the Code, 2006 a report was called.
(ii) In response, the Revenue Officer submitted the report dated 13.12.2019 annexed at page nos.45 and 46 of the present paper book. According to the report, in the revenue map of Gata No.488 the correct area was not indicated and this report also indicates that area of Gata No.487 was found to be in excess of 0.738 hect. and this area was proposed to be added in Gata No.488. The report reads as under.
"महोदय, न्यायालय / कार्यालय अपर कलेक्टर (वि० एवं रा०) लखनऊ के पत्र संख्या- 491/पेश/ए.डी.एम. (एफ.आर)/2019 दि०5-10-19 द्वारा बाद सं0 D201910460015640 दि. ग्रेटर अवध सह० गृ० नि० स० लि० बनाम उ०प्र० सरकार धारा 30 उ०प्र० रा० सं० 2006 ग्राम सरायशेख में सन्दर्भित गाटा सं. 488 क्षेत्र 0.908 हे० की नक्शा दुरुस्ती विषयक जांच आख्या चाही गयी है। जिसके सम्बन्ध में आख्या निम्नवत् है।
ग्राम सरायशेख प० व त० व जि० लखनऊ में स्थित गाटा सं. 488 क्षेत्रफल 0.908 हे० प्रार्थी / वादी दि. ग्रेटर अवध सह० ग्र० नि० स० लि०, द्वारा सचिव मो० साकिब सिद्दीकी व रामलली व ज्ञानवती आदि कई सहखातेदारों के नाम स०भू० के रूप में दर्ज है। इस गाटे का बन्दोबस्ती क्षेत्रफल 0.908 हे० है। एवं इस गाटे की शजरे पर आकृति मात्र 0.170 हे० ही बनी है जो अपने बन्दोबस्ती क्षेत्रफल 0.908 हे० के सापेक्ष 0.738 हे० कम बनी है आस-पास के भूखण्डों का भी शजरे के अनुसार क्षेत्रफल निकाला गया जिनका विवरण तुलनात्मक तालिका अनुसार निम्नवत् है।
खसरा नम्बर क्षेत्रफल बन्दोबस्ती शजरे के अनुसार क्षेत्रफल अन्तर विवरण कमी वेशी 1 2 3 4 5 6 483 0.344 0.330 0.014
-
-485
0.266 0.268
-
0.002
-489
0.183 0.163 0.020
-
-487
3.798 4.536
-
0.738
-488
0.908 0.170 0.738
-
-
उपरोक्तानुसार नक्शा दुरुस्ती हेतु सन्दर्भित गाटा सं. 488 से मिला हुआ गाटा सं. 487 में शजरे की आकृति 0.738 हे० अधिक बनी है। और इतने ही क्षेत्रफल का शजरा गाटा सं. 488क 0.738 हे. कम बनी है।
गाटा सं. 488 का शजरे के अनुसार क्षेत्रफल पूर्ण करने हेतु गाटा सं. 487 से नजरी नक्शे में प्रदर्शित बिन्दु B से K = 17 मीटर, बिन्दु D से A = 40 मी०, D से E = 81 मी०, E से F = 19 मीटर, बिन्दु G से H = 22 मी० बिन्दु H से I = 14 मीटर, I से J = 39 मीटर तथा K से J से चिन्हित आकृति A, D, E, G तथा B, C, G, H, I, J, K, प्रस्तावित है। इस प्रस्तावित क्षेत्रफल पर गाटा सं. 488 के क्षेत्रफल अनुसार खातेदार का कब्जा है।
उपरोक्त संसोधन से किसी गाटे के बन्दोबस्ती क्षेत्रफल पर कोई प्रभाव नही पड़ेगा।
अतः उपरोक्तानुसार गाटा संख्या 488 के नक्शा दुरुस्ती हेतु आख्या संस्तुति सहित सादर सेवा मे प्रेषित।"
(iii) After considering the report as also the other material available on record, opposite party no.4 -the Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Lucknow allowed the case no.15640/2019, detailed above, vide order dated 17.12.2020. The operative portion of order dated 17.12.2020 reads as under.
आदेश एतदवारा तहसीलदार सदर की उक्त आख्या दिनांक 13-12-2019 के आधार पर प्रश्नगत गाटा संख्या- 487 व 488 स्थित ग्राम सराय शेख परगना तहसील व जनपद लखनऊ प्रस्तावित संशोधित भूचित्र जो लाल मसि से प्रदर्शित किया गया है, के अनुसार मानचित्र संशोधित किये जाने का आदेश दिये जाते हैं। तहसीलदार सदर की उक्त आख्या एवं उसके साथ संलग्न प्रस्तावित संशोधित नक्शा इस आदेश का अंग होगा। आदेश की प्रति उप जिलाधिकारी/तहसीलदार सदर/प्रभारी अधिकारी (राजस्व अभिलेखालय) को अभिलेखों में अनुपालन में भेजी जाय। बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हो।
(iv) The revenue map was accordingly corrected in terms of report dated 13.12.2019 as directed by the opposite party no.4- Additional Collector, Finance & Revenue, Lucknow vide order dated 17.12.2020.
(v) It would be apt to indicate that challenging the order dated 17.12.2020, a revision in terms of Section 210 of Code 2006, registered as Revision/Case No.00046 of 2021, Computerized Case No.C202110000000046, was filed, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2021. Thereafter an application for recall of original order dated 17.12.2020 under Section 30 of the Code 2006 was filed, which was registered as Case No.3977 of 2023, Computerized Case No.D202310460003977, and the same was also rejected vide order dated 21.08.2023 by opposite party no.4-Additional District Magistrate, Finance & Revenue, annexed as Annexure 7 to the petition.
(vi) At this stage, Shri Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 stated that challenging the order dated 21.08.2023, a revision bearing Revision No.1985 of 2024 was preferred by opposite party no.5, in which no interim order has been passed till date and the same is still pending.
(vii) After the order(s) dated 17.12.2020 and 16.11.2021 a case was instituted in terms of Section 128 of Code 2006, registered as Case No.1702 of 2022, Computerized Case no.D202210460001702 (The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs. Bablu & others).
(viii) The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), after providing due opportunity to the parties concerned, allowed the aforesaid case vide order dated 23.11.2023. The operative portion of the same reads as under.
"मेरे द्वारा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध तथ्यों, साक्ष्यों एवं उभयपक्षों की ओर से प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस का विधिवत अवलोकन व परिशीलन किया गया। जिसके स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षीगण संख्या 1 लगायत 7 की ओर से प्रस्तुत जवाब दावे में स्वयं अंकित किया गया है कि वादीय भूमि त्रुटिवश विपक्षीगणों के नाम राजस्व अभिलेखों में अंकित हो गयी थी, जिस पर उनका कोई हक व अधिकार नहीं है। विपक्षी संख्या 1 लगायत 7 को जो भूमि त्रुटिवश आवंटित हो गयी थी, यदि उसका पट्टा रद्द/निरस्त कर दिया जाता है तो उसमें विपक्षीगणों को कोई आपत्ति नहीं है। तहसील आख्या के अनुसार ग्राम सराय शेख के गाटा 488/0.908हे० द ग्रेटर अवध सह० गृह निर्माण समिति लखनऊ, श्रीमती दया पाण्डेय, विजय लक्ष्मी यादव, फैसल अहमद आदि के नाम संक्रमणीय भूमिधर के रूप में अंकित है। गाटा संख्या 488 का शजरा छोटा था जिसका संशोधन वाद संख्या 15640/2019 दि ग्रेटर अवध सहकारी गृह नि० स० बनाम सरकार वाद संख्या डी 201910460015640 में आदेश दिनांक 17.12.2020 को पारित हुआ। उक्त आदेश का निगरानी वाद न्यायालय अपर आयुक्त वाद संख्या 0046/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा 210 दिनांक 16.11.2021 को निर्णित हुआ। उक्त आदेशों का क्रियान्वयन दिनांक 08.03.2022 को करते हुए शजरा मानचित्र तद्नुसार संशोधित कर दिया गया। गाटा संख्या 487 जो बन्दोबस्त में ऊसर के रूप में अंकित है। जिस पर ज०वि० की धारा 122बी 4एफ के अन्तर्गत ग्राम सरायशेख की खाता संख्या 361 भूमि जो असंक्रमणीय भूमिधर के रूप में गाटा संख्या 487स रकबा 0.152 है। बबलू, अभय, निर्भय आदि पुत्रगण रामनरेश आदि के नाम तथा खाता संख्या 368 गाटा संख्या 487स/0.152 हे० जो श्रीमती श्यामकली पत्नी रामनाथ निवासी नन्दपुर म० ग्राम के नाम पट्टा हुआ है। गाटा संख्या 488 जो शजरे में छोटा है संशोधन होने के पश्चात गाटा संख्या 487 में लगभग 0.738हे० पर नक्शा बना है, जिससे 122बी4एफ से प्राप्त पट्टेदारों की भूमि प्रभावित हुई है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह भी विदित होता है कि उक्त पट्टा आवंटन के सम्बन्ध में मा० उच्च न्यायालय लखनऊ खण्डपीठ लखनऊ में एक जनहित याचिका संख्या 5932/एमबी/2010 दाखिल की गयी थी। जिसमें मा० जिलाधिकारी लखनऊ द्वारा अपनी जॉच रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करते हुए ग्राम सराय शेख परगना, तहसील व जिला लखनऊ के पट्टेदार की सूची प्रस्तुत की गयी थी। जिसके क्रम संख्या 28 में अंकित पट्टेदार श्रीमती श्यामकली पत्नी रामनाथ गाटा संख्या 487स रकबा 0.152हे० के विवरण में स्पष्ट लिखा गया है कि "स्थल पर खातेदार का कब्जा नही है। उपरोक्त तथ्यों की विवेचना से यह सिद्ध होता है कि विपक्षी संख्या 1 ता 7 द्वारा अपने लिखित कथन में स्वीकार किया गया है कि गाटा संख्या 488 व 487 स का नक्शा दुरूस्त न होने के कारण अज्ञानतावश विपक्षी संख्या 01 ता 07 के हक में प्रार्थी/समिति के रकबे का पट्टा विपक्षीगण को किया गया है यदि न्यायालय द्वारा विपक्षी संख्या 01 ता 07 का पट्टा रद्द किया जाता है तो विपक्षीगण को आपत्ति नहीं है। प्रार्थी/समिति की भूमि गाटा संख्या 488 नक्शा नजरी में 0.738 हे० कम थी जिसके दुरूस्तीकरण हेतु प्रार्थी/समिति ने एक प्रार्थना पत्र वाद संख्या 15640/2019 अन्तर्गत धारा 30 उ०प्र०रा०सं० 2006 अपर जिलाधिकारी (वित्त एवं राजस्व) लखनऊ के न्यायालय में में प्रस्तुत किया था जो दिनांक 17.12.2020 को निर्णीत हुआ तथा न्यायालय द्वारा नक्शा दुरुस्तीकरण हेतु आदेश पारित किया गया। उक्त आदेश के विरूद्ध विपक्षीगण द्वारा आयुक्त लखनऊ मण्डल के यहा एक निगरानी संख्या 00046/2021 योजित की गयी। जो दिनांक 16.11.2021 को गुण-दोष के आधार पर निरस्त हो गयी। आदेश दिनांक 17.12.2020 की अमल दरामद सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा किया जा चुका है तथा भूमि गाटा संख्या 487स जो कि शिजरे में 0.738 हे० की बेशी थी उसे दुरुस्तीकरण करते हुए प्रार्थी/समिति की भूमि गाटा संख्या 488 का नक्शा दुरूस्त किया जा चुका है। विपक्षी संख्या 8 द्वारा यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि गाटा संख्या 487 में से रकबा 0.152हे. का पट्टा उसके पक्ष में किया गया था। विपक्षी संख्या 8 द्वारा अपने जवाब दावे/लिखित बहस में जो अन्य तथ्य प्रस्तुत किये हैं उसे साबित करने में वह असफल रही है। विपक्षीगणों के पक्ष में वादीय भूमि किस आधार पर दर्ज हुई के सम्बन्ध में पत्रावली पर संलग्र 122बी(4)एफ के अन्तर्गत किये गये पट्टे की प्रति के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है कि जमींदारी विनाश अधिनियम की धारा 122 बी(4)एफ दिनांक 10.06.2003 के 122बी(4)एफ के प्रारूप पर संलग्न आख्या तहसीलदार द्वारा यथा प्रस्तावित कर दिया गया है और उसी के अनुपालन में तत्कालीन नामान्तरण बहीं के पृष्ठ संख्या 92 के क्रमांक 34 पर दर्ज कर दिया गया। इसी के आधार पर तत्कालीन खतौनी पर भी अंसक्रमणीय भूमिधर के रूप में मूल पट्टेदार के नाम अंकित कर दी गयी। इन्हीं इन्द्राज के तहत वादी द्वारा धारा 128 राजस्व संहिता के तहत पट्टा निरस्तीकरण का वाद दाखिल किया गया। इस सम्बन्ध में जमीदारी विनाश अधिनियम की धारा 122बी(4)एफ में पूर्व में यह विधि संशोधन किया गया कि उप धारा 122बी(4)एफ(4-च) "3 जून 1995" के स्थान पर "अंक 1 मई 2002 तथा शब्द "यह समझा जायेगा कि उसे धारा 195 के अधीन अंसक्रमणीय अधिकार वाला बना दिया गया है" के स्थान पर शब्द "उसे वह भूमि अंसक्रमणीय अधिकार वाले भूमिधर के रूप में धारा 195 के तहत उठा दी जायेगी और उसके लिए असंक्रमणीय अधिकार वाले भूमिधर के रूप में घोषणा के लिए कोई वाद संस्थीत करना आवश्यक न होगा"। उक्त विधि संशोधन दिनांक 21.06.2002 से प्रतिस्थापित करते हुए प्रभावी बनाया गया। उक्त विधि संशोधन के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है कि धारा 122बी(4)एफ के तहत प्रतिस्थापित तिथि दिनांक 21.06.2002 से पूर्व मात्र विनियमतिकरण का प्राविधान था। धारा 195 के तहत आवंटन करने का प्राविधान नहीं था। लेकिन उक्त तिथि के बाद यह संशोधन किया गया कि 122बी(4)एफ के तहत उस व्यक्ति को वह भूमि अंसक्रमणीय अधिकार वाले भूमिधर के रूप में धारा 195 के अधीन उठा दी जायेगी। इससे स्पष्ट है कि उक्त व्यक्ति का धारा 195 के क्रम में और सम्बन्धित नियमों के तहत भूमि प्रबन्धक समिति का प्रस्ताव करते हुए सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा अंसकमणीय भूमिधर के रूप में आंवटन करने के लिए स्वीकृति प्रदान की जायेगी। चूंकि इस प्रकरण में 122बी(4)एफ के प्रारूप पर तहसीलदार द्वारा दिनांक 10.06.2003 को यथा प्रस्तावित कर दिया गया है जबकि नियमानुसार धारा 195 के अधीन उक्त भूमि को भूमि प्रबन्धक समिति के प्रस्ताव के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी उप जिलाधिकारी के द्वारा पट्टे को स्वीकृत किया जाना चाहिए था। जबकि स्वीकृती करने के स्थान पर यथा प्रस्तावित कर दिया गया है जो स्पष्ट रूप से एक अनियमितता है। इस प्रकार धारा 195 में वर्णित प्रक्रिया एवं नियमों का स्पष्ट उल्लघंन होता है। तदानुसार प्रतिवादीगणों के पक्ष में निर्गत आवंटन निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है। इस प्रकार विपक्षीगणों के पक्ष में पूर्व में नक्शा दुरूस्त न होने के कारण गलत तथ्यों के आधार पर तथा तत्समय 122 बी(4) एफ के अन्तर्गत जो पट्टा किया गया था अविधिक होने के कारण न्यायहित में निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।
अतः ग्राम सराय शेख परगना, तहसील व जिला लखनऊ की गाटा संख्या 487स रकबा 0.152हे० के सम्बन्ध में दिनांक 10.06.2003 को श्यामकली पत्नी राम नाथ निवासी नन्दपुर मजरा ग्राम के पक्ष में तथा गाटा संख्या 487स रकबा 0.152हे० के सम्बन्ध में दिनांक 30.07.2003 को राम नरेश पुत्र राम नाथ निवासी नन्दपुर मजरा ग्राम के पक्ष में 122बी(4)एफ के अन्तर्गत किया गया पट्टा अविधिक होने के कारण निरस्त किया जाता है। आदेश की एक प्रति उप जिलाधिकारी/तहसीलदार सदर लखनऊ को इस निर्देश के साथ प्रेषित की जाये कि गाम सराय शेख परगना, तहसील व जिला लखनऊ की खाता संख्या 361 पर अंकित गाटा संख्या 487स रकबा 0.152हे० व खाता संख्या 368 पर अंकित गाटा संख्या 487स रकबा 0.152हे० पर उक्त आदेश का अमल दरामद सुनिश्चित करायें। पूर्व में यदि कोई स्थगन आदेश पारित किया गया है तो उसे भी समाप्त किया जाता है। बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हों।""
(ix) Being aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2023 the private opposite party no.5- Smt. Shyamkali filed a revision in terms of Section 210 of Code 2006, registered as Revision/Case No.3662/2023, Computerized Case No.C202310000003662 (Smt. Shyamkali Vs. The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd.).
(x) The Revisional Authority after taking note of the relevant material available allowed the aforesaid revision and set aside the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow vide order dated 13.02.2025, impugned herein. The relevant portion of said order is extracted hereinunder.
"9- मैनें विपक्षी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्को को सुना गया तथा उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गयी लिखित बहस व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी ने वाद पत्र के पैरा-5 में ग्राम सभा द्वारा प्रार्थी के रकबे का पट्टा विपक्षीगणों के पक्ष में किया जाना कहते हुये गाटा संख्या 487स का पट्टा अवैधानिक कहते हुये गाटा संख्या 488 की भूमि पर नाजायज रूप से बलपूर्वक कब्जा करने का प्रयास किया जाना कहते हये वाद प्रस्तुत किया गया। उक्त वाद को प्रस्तुत करने में हुए विलम्ब को क्षमा करने हेतु प्राथना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। उक्त वाद में लेखपाल की आख्या दिनांक 17.09.2022 में गाटा संख्या 487स/0.152हे० पर निगरानीकर्ती का नाम धारा-122 बी04एफ में नाम दर्ज होना कहा गया। वादग्रस्त भूमि में बाउण्ड्रीवाल बनी होना और पति की समाधि बनी होना कहा गया। वाद में निगरानीकर्ती द्वारा जवाबदावा प्रस्तुत करते हुये उक्त भूमि को दिनांक 18.06.2003 को प्राप्त होना कहा गया। गाटा संख्या 488 से कोई मतलब नही होना कहा गया। यह भी कहा गया है कि वादी दि ग्रेटर अवध सहकारी गृह समिति द्वारा बैनामा शिव प्रसाद पुत्र पुत्तीलाल व भगीरथ पुत्र स्व० अशर्फी लाल व श्रीमती रामपति पत्नी स्व० अशर्फी से गाटा संख्या 488 के 1/2 भाग 1 बीधा 15 बिस्वा 18 बिस्वांसी भूमि में विक्रेता व क्रेता अनुसूचित जाति के सदस्य नहीं होने के आधार पर किया गया। गाटा संख्या 488 के विक्रेतागण अनुसूचित जाति की उपजाति पासी के सदस्य है। उक्त भूमि को राज्य सरकार में निहित किये जानें को निवेदन किया गया।
10- पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि गाटा संख्या 487 मि० ग्राम सभा की भूमि है। प्रारूप122 बी4एफ० के अवलोकन से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि गाटा संख्या 487 मि०/0.152हे० पर कब्जे की पुष्टि की आख्या ग्राम प्रधान, लेखपाल, राजस्व निरीक्षक द्वारा अंकित की गयी। उक्त प्रारूप पर यथाप्रस्तावित स्वीकृत दिनांक 10.06.2003 को किया गया। धारा-122 बी04एफ की प्रविष्टि को नामान्तरण बही के पृष्ठ सं० 92 के क्रमांक 34 पर दर्ज किया गया। खतौनी पर दिनांक 04.03.2003 को दर्ज किया गया। उक्त भूमि पर निगरानीकर्ती का कब्जा होने के आधार पर ही अधिकार प्रदान किये गये। चूंकि ग्राम सभा की भूमि पर जमींदारी विनाश अधिनियम की धारा-122बी04एफ० के अन्तर्गत कब्जे के आधार पर ही राज्य सरकार दवारा निगरानीकर्ती जो अनुसूचित जाति की महिला है, को विनियमित किया गया है, ऐसी स्थिति में जमींदारी विनाश अधिनियम की धारा-198(4) व वर्तमान में प्रचलित उ०प्र० राजस्व संहिता 2006 की धारा-128 के अन्तर्गत उक्त विनियमितीकरण के विरुद्ध वाद प्रस्तुत करने का कोई प्राविधान किसी व्यक्ति को नही है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा दि ग्रेटर अवध सहकारी गृह निर्माण समिति लि० जो हितबद्ध पक्षकार नही है, के द्वारा प्रस्तुत धारा-128 30प्र0 राजस्व संहिता-2006 के अन्तर्गत योजित वाद को मियाद अधिनियम का लाभ देते हुए नियम विरुद्ध तरीके से क्षेत्राधिकार के परे जाकर पत्रावली में निगरानीकर्ती द्वारा प्रस्तुत जवाबदावा व फोटोग्राफ का संज्ञान लिये बिना निगरानीकर्ती के विरुद्ध आदेश दिनांक 23.11.2023 पारित किया गया है, जो अविधिक, नियम विरुद्ध व क्षेत्राधिकार से परे होने के कारण स्थिर रहने योग्य कदापि नही है। अतः अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.11.2023 निरस्त किया जाता है तथा निगरानीकर्ती के पक्ष में कब्जे के आधार पर जमींदारी विनाश अधिनियम की धारा-122बी (4एफ) के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 10.06.2003 को विनियमीकरण का आदेश बहाल किया जाता है।
11- इस संबंध में 2007 (103) आर०डी० 121 (एच) श्यामलाल आदि बनाम जगदीश प्रसाद में मा० राजस्व परिषद द्वारा यह व्यवस्था दी गयी है कि धारा-122बी04एफ0 उ० प्र०ज०वि० एवं भू०व्य०अधि० के विरुद्ध आवंटन निरस्तीकरण की कार्यवाही नहीं की जा सकती है तथा इसी संबंध में मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय ने मनोरे उर्फ मनोहर बनाम बोर्ड आफ रेवन्यू एवं अन्य 2003 (94) आर० डी० 538 की अपील में में यह माना गया कि धारा-122ख (4-च) अनुसूचित जाति के कृषक मजदूर को लाभ प्रदान करने के उद्देश्य से बनायी गयी है तथा एक बार भूमि के कब्जे में आने पर न केवल सुरक्षा प्रदान करती है बल्कि कब्जाधारी को भूमिधरी अधिकार प्रदान करती है और यह आवश्यक नही है कि कब्जाधारी अपने अधिकारों को मजबूत करने के लिये धारा 198 में आवण्टन की प्रक्रिया से गुजरे बल्कि राजस्व अधिकारियों का दायित्व है कि वे ऐसे कब्जे की पुष्टि करते हुये राजस्व अभिलेखों में आवश्यक इन्द्राज अंकित करें। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के अनुसार निगरानीकर्ती का कब्जा गाटा संख्या 487 मि/0.152हे0 पर पाये जाने के प्रारूप पर ग्राम प्रधान, लेखपाल, रा० नि० द्वारा पाया गया, जिसके आधार पर निगरानीकर्ती को धारा-122बी04एफ0 के अन्तर्गत लाभ प्रदान करते हुये असंक्रमणीय भूमिधर दर्ज किया गया। उक्त स्थिति में निगरानीकर्ती को धारा-122बी04एफ०उ०प्र०ज०वि० एवं भ०व्य० अधि० में प्रदान किये गये अधिकार में किसी हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नही है। ऐसी स्थिति में अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.11.2023 निरस्त किये जाने योग्य हैं तथा निगरानीकर्ती द्वारा प्रस्तुत निगरानी स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।
12- निगरानीकर्ती द्वारा शिव प्रसाद व पुत्तीलाल व भागीरथ पुत्रगण स्व० अशर्फीलाल व श्रीमती रामपति पत्नी स्व० अशर्फीलाल निवासी ग्राम नन्दपुर सरायंशेख को अनुसूचित जाति की उपजाति पासी का सदस्य होना कहते हुये दि ग्रेटर अवध सहकारी गृह के पक्ष में निष्पादित विक्रय पत्र को धारा-157क से बाधित होना कहा गया। उक्त कथन का विपक्षी द्वारा अवर न्यायालय एवं इस न्यायालय में खण्डन नहीं किया गया। विक्रेतागण शिव प्रसाद आदि अनुसूचित जाति से भिन्न जाति के होने से सम्बन्धित कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। उक्त स्थिति में गाटा संख्या 488 के खातेदार शिवप्रसाद आदि की जाति के सम्बन्ध में जांच कराया जाना उचित प्रतीत होता है।
उक्त विवेचना के परिपेक्ष्य में निगरानी स्वीकार की जाती है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.11.2023 निरस्त किया जाता है। विवादित भूमि गाटा संख्या 487स/0.152हे० के सम्बन्ध में निगरानीकर्ती के पक्ष में धारा-122बी4एफ० का लाभ देते हुये पारित किये गये आदेश दिनांक 10.06.2003 को यथावत रखा जाता है। इस आदेश की एक प्रति अवर न्यायालय व उपजिलाधिकारी सदर, लखनऊ को भेज़ी जाये। अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली भी वापस भेजी जाये। गाटा संख्या 488 स्थित ग्राम सरायं शेख के सम्बन्ध में उपजिलाधिकारी सदर, लखनऊ को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि शिवप्रसाद व पुत्तीलाल व भगीरथ पुत्रगण स्व० अशर्फीलाल व श्रीमती रामपति पत्नी स्व० अशर्फीलाल निवासी ग्राम नन्दपुर सरायंशेख की जाति के सम्बन्ध में जांच कराये। यदि जांच में विक्रेतागणों के अनुसूचित जाति के होने की पुष्टि होती है तब गाटा संख्या 488 के सम्बन्ध में दिनांक 31.03.2004 को किये गये विक्रय विलेख में तत्समय धारा-157 उ०प्र०ज०वि०एवं भू० व्य० अधि०/98 (1) उ० प्र० राजस्व संहिता का उल्लंघन होने में भूमि को राज्य सरकार में निहित किये जाने की पृथक से कार्यवाही प्रचलित करें। बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही इस न्यायालय की पत्रावली अभिलेखागार में संचित की जाये।"
4. The impugned order, as per the memo of petition, has been assailed on the following grounds:-
"L. Because, the validity of the alleged Patta has duly been examined in the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2023 in the background that opposite party no. 5 was not in possession of the land in question and the petitioner was within its right and title to get the map area corrected.
M. Because, the reason for filing the application U/S 30 of UP Revenue Code 2006 has only arisen in 2019 when the petitioner has already purchased the aforesaid area by means of two Sale deeds dated 31.03.2004 and 07.05.2004 and his name was recorded accordingly in the Khatauni.
N. Because, a perusal of the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 would reveal that the Learned Revisional Court has recorded a finding to the effect that the name of Shyamkali was recorded in Khatauni on 04.03.2003 where the so called alleged approval bears the date as 10.06.2003 meaning thereby the name of Shyamkali came to be recorded in Khatauni prior to the alleged approval.
O. Because, the order passed by the Revisional Court, impugned herein, is beyond its jurisdiction and suffers from non application of mind.
P. Because, after purchasing the land in question the Petitioner Society has duly allotted the same in favour of its members who have already constructed their houses and the petitioner is under obligation to protect the interests of its members by defending their rights and titles."
5. Based upon the grounds, quoted above, Shri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his submissions and prays to allow the petition.
6. Opposing the present petition, Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 submitted as under.
(i) The petitioner no.1 is not an aggrieved person if it is taken that patta was granted to the opposite party no.5 and as such the proceedings instituted under Section 128 of Code 2006 at the behest of the petitioner no.1 itself was not maintainable.
(ii) Indisputably, the opposite party no.5- Shyamkali belongs to SC/ST category and she was in possession over the Gaon Sabha land and accordingly the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act 1950') was provided by the revenue authorities and as such no proceedings can be initiated by any person in terms of Section 198(4) of Act, 1950 (now repealed) or Section 128 of Code 2006.
(iii) To set up its case, the petitioner no.1 in the application under Section 128 of Code 2006 has indicated that the patta was granted on the land of the petitioner no.1, but to establish this fact no evidence/material has been placed on record and in this view of the matter the said averments are completely vague and misconceived and further, even in these allegations the application under Section 128 of Code 2006 could not have been entertained and allowed.
(iv) Section 122-B(4-F) of Act 1950 is a beneficiary piece of legislation and is a deeming provision and as such if some orders related to approval was passed even then the same would not affect the statutory right available to the opposite party no.5.
7. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
8. The present matter revolves around Section 128 of Code of 2006, which relates to instituting a case for cancellation of patta and 122-B(4-F) of Act, 1950, which confers positive rights to the occupant of Gaon Sabha land. Accordingly prior to proceeding in the matter this Court finds it appropriate to take note of some authorities on the issue involved wherein Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 has been considered and interpreted.
9. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Satya Veer and another vs State of U.P. and others; 2015 SCC Online All 7504 read as under:-
"12. To examine this question, it would be apt to go through the relevant provisions under the Act:--
Section 122-B reads as under:--
"122-B. Powers of the Land Management Committee and the Collector.--
(1) Where any property vested under the provisions of this Act in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to take or retain possession of any land under the provisions of this Act and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Land Management Committee or Local Authority, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed.
(2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land, referred to in that sub-section, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation as mentioned in such notice be not recovered from him or, as the case may be, why he should not be evicted from such land.
(3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time not exceeding three months from the date of service of such notice on such person, as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person may be evicted from the land and may for that purpose, use, or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue.
(4) If the Assistant Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation referred to in the notice under sub-section (2) he shall discharge the notice.
(4-A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such order prefer, a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of section 333.
(4-B) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as may be prescribed.
(4-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 333 or section 333-A, but subject to the provisions of this section--
(i) every order of the Assistant Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of subsections (4-A) and (4-D), be final.
(ii) every order of the Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4-D), be final.
(4-D) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property.
(4-E) No such suit as is referred to in sub-section (4-D) shall lie against an order of the Assistant Collector if a revision is preferred to the Collector under sub-section (4-A).
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression 'Collector' means the officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Additional Collector].
Section 122-B(4-F)- Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing subsection, 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 it shall be deemed that he has been 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 nontransferable rights in that land.
Explanation.--The expression 'agricultural labourer' shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 198."
13. Section 123 further reads as under:--
"Section 123. Certain house sites to be settled with existing owner thereof.--(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 9, where any person referred to in sub-section (3) of section 122-C has built a house on any land referred to in sub-section (2) of that section, not being land reserved for any public purpose and such house exists on the (30th day of June, 1985) the site of such house shall be held by the owner of the house on terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) Where any person referred to in sub-section (3) of section 122-C has built a house on any land held by a tenure-holder (not being a Government lessee) and such house exists on the (30th day of June, 1985) the site of such house shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be deemed to be settled with the owner of such house by the tenure holder on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (2), a house existing on the (30th day of June, 1985) on any land held by a tenure-holder shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been built by the occupant thereof and where the occupants are members of one family by the head of that family.)"
14. These are the two provisions which provides for settlement of land in favour of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes agricultural labourers who have built their house or have occupied the land prior to the cut-off date i.e. 1.5.2002 (in the instant case).
15. Only rider is that the land in question should not be a land reserved for public purpose or the land mentioned in section 132 of the Act. In so far as according benefit of section 122-B (4-F) is concerned, the petitioners who allege their possession have to fulfil certain conditions.
16. Section 122-B under the scheme of the Act provides for a complete mechanism to save Gaon/Sabha land from encroachment and unauthorised possession.
17. Sub-section (1) provides that information has to be sent by the Land Management Committee to Gaon Sabha or local authority in case of any encroachment over the land of Gaon Sabha or the local authority and the Assistant Collector concerned shall proceed in the manner prescribed therein.
18. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) provide for the manner in which a report of encroachment is to be dealt with by the Assistant Collector.
19. Sub-section (4-A) further provides that if any person is aggrieved by the order of Assistant Collector under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) of section 122-B, he may prefer revision before the Collector.
20. Sub-section (4-C) further provides that the order of Assistant Collector or the Collector as the case may be, is final.
21. Sub-section (4-D) further provides that any person, aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Collector or Collector, may file a suit before the competent Court to establish his rights.
22. These provisions imposed a responsibility upon the Land Management Committee to keep a vigil on the encroachment or unauthorised occupation of the Gaon-Sabha land. In case of any such situation, immediate action is to be taken by making a report to the Assistant Collector concerned who shall issue a notice and take appropriate action and shall pass necessary orders accordingly.
23. However, sub-section (4-F) of section 122-B of the Act carves out an exception which permits the occupation over the Gaon-Sabha land by a certain class of persons namely Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who is an agricultural landless labourer and has been in possession over the said land before 1st May, 2002. Sub section (4-F) which was substituted by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986 is an enabling provision to protect the agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from being evicted from the Gaon-Sabha land if he/she fulfils the conditions enumerated therein.
24. Section 195 confers power upon the Land Management Committee to admit any persons as "Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights" to any land which does not fall in any of the clauses mentioned in section 132 with the previous approval of the Assistant Collec tor incharge of the Sub-Divisions with respect to the lands as follows:--
"(a) the land is vacant land,
(b) the land is vested in the (Gaon Sabha) under section 117, or
(c) the land has come into the possession of [Land Management Committee] under section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act."
25. Section 197 of the Act, however, gives power to the Land Management Committee to admit any person as 'Aasami' to any land falling in any of the clauses mentioned in section 132. Thus, under the Scheme of "U.P. Zamindari, Abolition & Land Reforms Act" but for the aforesaid provisions of sub-section (4-F), the rights of any person as Bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights, as the case may, unless his name is duly recorded in the revenue records has not been recognised except where such person seeks declaration by filing a suit under section 229-B of the Act. It is only by virtue of subsection (4-F) of section 122-B that the agricultural labourer who fulfils the conditions given therein is not required to seek a declaration by filing a suit and can be admitted as "Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights" under section 195.
26. Thus, from a reading of the provisions of section 122-B in its entirety, it is clear that sub-section (4-F) is not a provision for seeking declaration of the rights of a person who is in occupation of the Gaon-Sabha land for declaring him as "Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights". In fact, it is a right to defend, if such a person is to be evicted or dispossessed from the land of Gaon-Sabha in an appropriate provision under the Act. Thus, the occupant as described in sub-section (4-F), who is sought to be evicted from the Gaon-Sabha land, would have a right to plead and establish that since his possession has continued since before the cut-off date, rights had precipitated in his favour and he is a Bhumidhar of the land with non-transferable rights, if such plea is raised the same would be considered by the authority concerned before evicting that person.
27. The right of defence given under the said provision to an Agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe cannot be taken as a right of seeking declaration under the aforesaid provisions. Meaning thereby, section 122-B (4-F) cannot be taken recourse for recording entry in the 'Khatauni'."
10. Relevant para of the judgment passed in Special Appeal no.479 of 2015 (Sushila and another vs State of U.P. and others) reads as under:-
"Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B has been construed and interpreted in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manorey alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.) and Ors.3. The Supreme Court held that sub-section (4F) carves out an exception from the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) under which a procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants of land vested in the Gram Sabha is provided. The exception which is carved out by sub-section (4F) is in favour of agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes having land below the stipulated ceiling of 3.125 acres. Where the conditions of sub-section (4F) are fulfilled, the legislature has provided that no action to evict such person shall be taken and he shall be deemed to have been admitted as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights over the land.
The Supreme Court has held thus:
"8. First, the endeavour should be to analyze and identify the nature of the right or protection conferred by sub-section (4F) of Section 122-B. Sub-sections (1) to (3) and the ancillary provisions upto sub-section (4E) deal inter alia, with the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants of land vested in Gaon Sabha. Sub-section (4F) carves out an exception in favour of an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe having land below the ceiling of 3.125 acres. Irrespective of the circumstances in which such eligible person occupied the land vested in Gaon Sabha (other than the land mentioned in Section 132), no action to evict him shall be taken and moreover, he shall be deemed to have been admitted as a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights over the land, provided he satisfies the conditions specified in the sub-section. According to the findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the appellate authority, the appellant does satisfy the conditions. If so, two legal consequences follow. Such occupant of the land shall not be evicted by taking recourse to sub-section (1) to (3) of Section 122B. It means that the occupant of the land who satisfies the conditions under sub-section (4F) is entitled to safeguard his possession as against the Gaon Sabha. The second and more important right which sub-section (4F) confers on him is that he is endowed with the rights of a Bhumidhar with no-transferable rights. The deeming provision has been specifically enacted as a measure of agrarian reform, with a thrust on socio-economic justice. The statutorily conferred right of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights finds its echo in clause (b) of Section 131. Any person who acquires the rights of Bhumidhar under or in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is recognized under Section 131 as falling within the class of Bhumidhar. The right acquired or accrued under sub-section (4F) is one such right that falls within the purview of Section 131(b)."
The Supreme Court also held that sub-section (4F) is not merely a shield to protect the possession of a person who fulfills the conditions in sub-section (4F) but it also confers a positive right of being recognized as Bhumidhar on the occupant satisfying the conditions and criteria laid down in the sub-section.
The Supreme Court has held thus:
"Thus, sub-section (4F) of Section 122-B not merely provides a shield to protect the possession as opined by the High Court, but it also confers a positive right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the land satisfying the criteria laid down in that sub-Section. ...When once the deeming provision unequivocally provides for the admission of the person satisfying the requisite criteria laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195, full effect must be given to it. Section 195 lays down that the Land Management Committee, with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub Division, shall have the right to admit any person as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any vacant land (other than the land falling under Section 132) vested in the Gaon Sabha. Section 198 prescribes "the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197". The last part of sub-section (4F) of Section 122-B confers by a statutory fiction the status of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on the eligible occupant of the land as if he has been admitted as such under Section 195. In substance and in effect, the deeming provision declares that the statutorily recognized Bhumidhar should be as good as a person admitted to Bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read with other provisions. In a way, sub-section (4F) supplements Section 195 by specifically granting the same benefit to a person coming within the protective umbrella of that sub-section. The need to approach the Gaon Sabha under Section 195 read with Section 198 is obviated by the deeming provision contained in sub-section (4F). We find no warrant to constrict the scope of deeming provision."
11. Relevant para of the judgment passed in Writ-C no.129 of 2013 (Brahmanand and others vs State of U.P. and others) reads as under:-
"9. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions it is quite explicit that the intendment of the legislature in incorporating said provision was to automatically conferred the rights in respect of the category of lessees who had the possession as on 30th June, 1985 and, therefore, if the tenure holder was living on said date, he would have automatically become entitled to the said benefit. Merely because necessary application has come to be made at a later point of time and tenure holder died leaving behind heirs, the said claim cannot be denied on the ground that on the date application had been moved the original tenure holder had died and that land later on came within territorial of the municipality or Nagar Nigam. The provision clearly indicates that one who was in possession of the land on the relevant date, the land stood settled with the said person conferring upon him with the status of bhumidhar with non-transferable and mere application would have only resulted in necessary correction in the revenue records. So, even if the application is subsequently moved, it cannot be said that the rights would accrue only on the date of the application and in case if the tenure holder died subsequently his heirs shall be denied benefits. The right to the tenure holder accrued in the year 1985 itself as per the provision and subsequent death of the tenure holder would automatically result in the succession of his heirs and right would automatically get transferred to the successors and it cannot be said that the bhumidhari rights even in the category of non transferable rights are not subject to succession and, therefore, in my considered opinion the Sub-Divisional Magistrate manifestly erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the heirs would not have been permitted to step into the shoes to claim rights under the relevant provision of law.
10. Besides above, once the Additional Commissioner had remitted the matter with clear obsrvation in the order of remand that the claim would not be denied on the ground that subsequently the land had got notified under the Nagar Nigam under the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam Act, 1959, it was not open for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to sit in appeal over the order of the Additional Commssioner and thus, the Court is of definite opinion that the authority has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction and authoritiy in making such observation and, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on that count also cannot be sustained.
11. So far the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner in the subsequent revision is concerned, as I have already held hereinabove that rights would not get changed merely because the land has subseqently been notified as within the territorial limits of Nagar Nigam Meerut, if the tenure holder was in possession on the cut of date i.e. 30th June, 1985. In my above observation and the view taken by me, I am supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manorey v. Board of Revenue 2003 (5) SCC 521, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the said provision and its application, vide paragraph 9 of the judgment has held thus:-
"9. Thus, sub-Section (4F) of Section 122B not merely provides a shield to protect the possession as opined by the High Court, but it also confers a positive right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the land satisfying the criteria laid down in that sub-Section. Notwithstanding the clear language in which the deeming provision is couched and the ameliorative purpose of the legislation, the learned single Judge of the High Court had taken the view in Ramdin Vs. Board of Revenue (supra) (followed by the same learned Judge in the instant case) that the Bhumidhari rights of the occupant contemplated by sub-Section (4F) can only blossom out when there is a specific allotment order by the Land Management Committee under Section 198. According to the High Court, the deeming provision contained in sub-Section (4F) cannot be overstretched to supersede the other provisions in the Act dealing specifically with the creation of the right of Bhumidhar. In other words, the view of the High Court was that a person covered by the beneficial provision contained in sub-Section (4F) will have to still go through the process of allotment under Section 198 even though he is not liable for eviction. As a corollary to this view, it was held that the occupant was not entitled to seek correction of revenue records, even if his case falls under sub-Section (4F) of Section 122B. We hold that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. It amounts to ignoring the effect of a deeming provision enacted with a definite social purpose. When once the deeming provision unequivocally provides for the admission of the person satisfying the requisite criteria laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195, full effect must be given to it. Section 195 lays down that the Land Management Committee, with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub Division, shall have the right to admit any person as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any vacant land (other than the land falling under Section 132) vested in the Gaon Sabha. Section 198 prescribes "the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197". The last part of sub-Section (4F) of Section 122B confers by a statutory fiction the status of Bhumidhar with non transferable rights on the eligible occupant of the land as if he has been admitted as such under Section 195. In substance and in effect, the deeming provision declares that the statutorily recognized Bhumidhar should be as good as a person admitted to Bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read with other provisions. In a way, sub-Section (4F) supplements Section 195 by specifically granting the same benefit to a person coming within the protective umbrella of that sub-Section. The need to approach the Gaon Sabha under Section 195 read with Section 198 is obviated by the deeming provision contained in sub-Section (4F). We find no warrant to constrict the scope of deeming provision. That being the legal position, there is no bar against an application being made by the eligible person coming within the four corners of sub-Section (4F) to effect necessary changes in the revenue record. When once the claim of the applicant is accepted, it is the bounden duty of the concerned revenue authorities to make necessary entries in revenue records to give effect to the statutory mandate. The obligation to do so arises by necessary implication by reason of the statutory right vested in the person coming within the ambit of sub-Section (4F). The lack of specific provision for making an application under the Act is no ground to dismiss the application as not maintainable. The revenue records should naturally fall in line with the rights statutorily recognized. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore within his rights to allow the application and direct the correction of the records. The Board of Revenue and the High Court should not have set aside that order. The fact that the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha had created lease hold rights in favour of the respondents herein is of no consequence. Such lease, in the face of the statutory right of the appellant, is nonest in the eye of law and is liable to be ignored."
12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 is a beneficial and deeming provision enacted with a definite social purpose and this deeming provision unequivocally provides for the admission of the person satisfying the requisite criteria laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under the Act of 1995 and full effect must be given to it and this provision as per the Hon'ble Apex Court is not a mere shield to protect the possession of a person who fulfills the conditions indicated in sub-section (4-F) but also confers positive right of being recognized as Bhumidhar or occupant satisfying the condition /criteria provided under the Act of 1950 and further, this provision provides rights to defend, if such person is to be evicted or dispossessed from the land of Gaon Sabha.
13. In view of the aforesaid, it is now to be considered the effect of rights provided to an occupant of Gaon Sabha land under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950, after enforcement of Code of 2006, w.e.f. 11.02.2006 and on this aspect, it would be relevant to consider Section 230 of the Code of 2006, which reads as under:-
"230.Repeal.(1) The enactments specified in the First Schedule are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the repeal of such enactments shall not affect-
(a) the continuance in force of any such enactment in the State of Uttarakhand;
(b) the previous operation of any such enactment or anything duly done or suffered there under; or
(c) any other enactment in which such enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to; or
(d) the validity, invalidity, effect or consequences of anything already done or suffered, or any right, title or obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred (including, in particular, the vesting in the State of all estates and the cessation of all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries therein), or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereof, or any release or discharge of or from any debt, penalty, obligation, liability, claim or demand, or any indemnity already granted or the proof of any past act or thing; or (e) any principle or rule of law or established jurisdiction, form or course of pleading, practice or procedure or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction, exemption, office or appointment:
Provided that anything done or any action taken (including any rules, manuals,assessments, appointments and transfers made, notifications, summonses, notices,warrants, proclamation issued, powers conferred, leases granted, boundary marks fixed, records of rights and other records prepared or maintained, rights acquired or liabilities incurred) under any such enactment shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Code, and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until they are superseded by anything done or action taken under this Code."
14. From a bare reading of above quoted provision, it is crystal clear that the repeal of the Act of 1950 shall not affect any right acquired or accrued.
15. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no good ground for interference is made out. It is for the following reason(s) :-
(i) Petitioner No.1- the Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., a housing society, and petitioner no.2 - Mohd. Shaqib Siddiqui are not aggrieved persons, which is apparent/evident from a conjoint reading of the fact that petitioner no.1 is a housing society and following observations of this Court in the judgment passed in Pyare Lal & others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation Mainpuri & others, reported in 2005 ALL LJ 1966.
"4. However, before proceeding to consider the question of granting reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition, to direct either the consolidation authorities or the Revenue authorities to consider the case of the petitioners, it has to be considered whether the petitioners who are three in number, two private individuals and the Gaon Sabha have any right to maintain the proceedings for cancellation of the lease made in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and the writ petition filed by them is maintainable.
5. Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act prescribes the procedure for cancellation of the allotment made by Gaon Sabha. The said Section also provides the order of preference to be followed while making allotment of land. Section 198(2) as it originally?stood provided for an appeal by any "person aggrieved" against the order of allotment or lease made by Gaon Sabha before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Section has under gone frequent changes. By Section 36 of the U.P. Amendment Act XX of 1954 sub-section (2) was substituted by a new section and the Sub Divisional Officer came to be vested with the power to inquire into the allotment made under sub-section (1) either on his own motion or on the application of any "person aggrieved". By Section 23 of the U.P. Act XXXVLI of 1958 the said power came to be vested in Assistant Collector In-charge of Sub-Division instead of Sub Divisional Officer. Again by Section 14 of U.P. Act (IV) of 1969 the power came to be vested in the Collector which could be exercised by him either on his own motion or on the application of any "person aggrieved" by the allotment. The Section as it stands now, the power of cancellation is vested with collector which can be exercised by him either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved. Whatever the amendments, the position that cancellation proceedings can be initiated by a "person aggrieved" has remained unaltered throughout. Thus, in order to maintain the cancellation proceedings the petitioners have to demonstrate that they are persons aggrieved.
6. Dictionary meaning of word aggrieved is "having suffered loss or injury. "According to the Black's Law Dictionary aggrieved party/person is "one whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by a decree or judgment. The word aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation". According to Corpus Juris Secundum volume IV 356 (1st edition) a party or a person can be said to be aggrieved by a decision only when it operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary or proprietary rights.
7. The word aggrieved party/person has also been subject-matter of the judicial interpretation by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.Μ. Seervai, (1970) 2 SCC 484: AIR 1971 SC 385 while considering the scope and ambit of the word "per son aggrieved" used in Section 37 of the Advocates Act 1961. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
"From these cases it is apparent that any person who feels disappointed with the result of the case is not a person aggrieved. He must be disappointed of a benefit which he would have received if the order had gone the other way. The order must cause him a legal grievance by wrongfully depriving him of something."
8. From the above it is clear that a per son can be said to be aggrieved only when his rights are directly affected by the operation of the decision, meaning thereby, the decision wrongly deprives him of something or wrongfully refuses him something to which he is legally entitled or wrongfully affects his title of something.
9. In the present case, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are challenging the allotment made by Gaon Sabha in favour of respondent No. 5 and 6. However, they can only be covered under the definition of aggrieved person if they are able to demonstrate that the decision of Gaon Sabha to allot land in favour of respondent No. 5 and 6 wrongfully deprived them of their right of allotment of the said land or they had any title in the said land. Section 198 of the Act prescribes the order of preference to be observed while making allotment of land. Unless, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 demonstrate that they were applicants for allotment and higher in order of preference than respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and had better claim for allotment than respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and have been wrongfully and illegally deprived of their such rights, they cannot be said to be aggrieved persons. There is not even a whisper in the pleadings that the petitioners were also applicants for allotment of the land and were higher in preference than respondents Nos. 5 and 6. In the absence of any such pleadings petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be aggrieved persons so as to maintain the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and as such the writ petition filed by them is not maintainable.
(i) (a) The judgment indicated above was subsequently considered in case of Meharban and Ors . Vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in MANU/UP/0986/2009 ; Gram Sabha Kachnal Gussain Vs. The Additional Collector (Nazul)/Deputy Director reported in MANU/UP/0877/2012; Ram Sanehi and Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/3103/2014 ;Hari Shankar Kushwaha and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in MANU/UP/4488/2017;Mangaru and Ors Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/2811/2018;Katar Singh and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Meerut and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/1631/2019; Babulal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in MANU/UP/2751/2022; Razia Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/1770/2024.
(ii) Rights provided to opposite party no.5 in terms of Section 122-B(4-F) of Act of 1950 cannot be permitted to be adjudicated at the behest of petitioners.
16. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 19.03.2025 Anand/-