Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sushma Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Others on 22 November, 2024
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?A.F.R. Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77446 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000081 of 1994 Petitioner :- Smt. Sushma Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.
2. The present dispute pertains to plot Nos.22/23 and 276M/1.25 situated in village Mohammadpur Dina, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri. The patta in respect of disputed land was granted to the petitioner in pursuance of a resolution made by land management committee on 22.04.1987, which was later on approved by the Addl. Sub Divisional Officer on 12.07.1987. On the basis of tehsil report, the proceedings under Section 198(4) UPZA and LR Act for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed land were started on the ground that her husband was having much land and he was on the post of Assistant Engineer. Further the petitioner was not found in the category of land less agricultural labour.
3. On the basis of said report of tehsil, a case was registered and a notice was served on the petitioner in which the petitioner filed her objection on the ground that she was the permanent resident of the said gaon sabha and she was a land less agricultural labour. In support of her case, the petitioner produced herself and two witnesses - Misri Lal and Pyara Lal. It is submitted that on behalf of the State, only one witness i.e. Ram Gopal, Lekhpal was produced. The petitioner also filed the extract of Khatauni as well as Khasra showing the name of the petitioner over the said disputed land.
4. By perusal of khasra and khatauni filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the disputed land i.e. plot Nos.276 & 22 are recorded as talab and the petitioner had taken the training of fisheries. It is stated that the patta in favour of the petitioner was for fisheries purpose and therefore the cancellation of patta by the Collector, Kheri under Section 198 (4) UPZA and LR Act is without jurisdiction.
5. Vide order dated 13.08.1990, the Collector, Kheri has cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner is not the land less agricultural labour and husband of the petitioner is doing government service and as such, she is not competent to get patta. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision before the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who dismissed the revision on 27.10.1993. Against the said order dated 27.10.1993, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who dismissed the review petition on 14.12.1993 on the ground that no new argument could be brought on her behalf as made earlier at the time of passing the order dated 27.10.1993.
6. Being aggrieved by orders dated 13.08.1990 passed by the Collector, orders dated 27.10.1993 and 14.12.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have committed error in cancelling the patta of the petitioner on imagination, conjecture and surmises. In fact, the record has wrongly interpreted and wrong conclusion was made that the petitioner was not a competent person to get the patta granted in her favour.
8. He next submitted that the courts below have acted without jurisidiction in cancelling the patta of the petitioner under Section 198 (4) UPZA and LR Act, while the said patta was granted in favour of the petitioner for fisheries rights.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC for respondent State on the basis of counter affidavit stated that on the basis of resolution passed by the land management committee, gata No.22/0.23 acre and 276 min./1.25 acre total 2 kita/1.48 land was allotted in faovur of the petitioner and both these gatas pertain to the pond, therefore, a report for cancelling the patta was sent to the Court of District Magistrate, Kheri under Section 198(4) UPZA and LR Act. The District Magistrate, after hearing all the parties, cancelled the allotment of patta vide order dated 13.08.1990.
10. Against the order dated 13.08.1990, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.10.1993. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a review application, which was also rejected vide order dated 14.12.1993 being devoid of merits.
11. He lastly submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders and the same are just and valid. The writ petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.
12. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. On perusal of record, it is transpired that the petitioner is not an agriculturist labour nor has been allotted land in the shape of pond for fisheries rights. In fact, the land is a pond and allotment of lease is to be granted in favour of persons, who comes under the category defined under the Act. The petitioner does not come under the ambit nor is a landless agriculturist. In fact, 3.42 hectare land has been allotted in the name of petitioner's husband Sri Awadhesh Kumar, who is posted as Sub Divisional Officer in Tube Well Department, therefore, lease cannot be granted in his favour, therefore, no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned orders.
14. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Adarsh K Singh