Allahabad High Court
Nanhe Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:55791
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 8586 of 2025
Nanhe Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ram Kinkar Upadhyay, Jagendra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Jagendra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.
2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that present dispute pertains to Plot No. 1672/3.1340 hectares of Khata No. 1020 and Plot No. 1661/0.030 hectares of Khata No. 1016, situated in Village - Itgaon, Pargana - Pashchim Rath, Tehsil - Milkipur, District - Ayodhya, which is recorded as "Banjar" and "Navin Parti" respectively, in the revenue records.
4. It has been submitted that some portion of the land was in possession of one Sarju, ancestor of petitioner who had two sons namely Vishram and Kalicharan. Petitioner is the son of Vishram while Shyam lal, respondent no. 5 is son of Kalicharan.
5. It has been further submitted that Sarju, petitioner and respondent no. 5 belong to scheduled caste category and are also having possession over the aforesaid land which is less then 1.26 hectares and accordingly, they have right to be declared as bhoomidhar with non transferable rights as provided under Section 122-B(4)F of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that Kalicharan moved an application on 16.09.2010, under Section 122B(4)F of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Milkipur, Faizabad and a report and a report in this regard was also sent by the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector on 21.01.2011 and on consideration of the aforesaid facts the Sub Divisional Officer, Milkipur, Faizabad by means of order dated 04.08.2011, approved the report of the revenue authorities and settled the land in favour of Kalicharan. After passing of the aforesaid order name of Kalicharan was mutated in the revenue records.
7. On coming to know about the order dated 04.08.2011, father of predecessor in interest of petitioner namely Vishram, moved an application for restoration against ex-parte order dated 04.08.2011, which was registered as application no. 36 and original file was also examined. Kalicharan has participated in the proceedings and filed his objections to the application for recall filed by Vishram and by means of order dated 15.07.2013, the application preferred by Vishram was rejected.
8. The petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, only assailing validity of order dated 04.08.2011, inasmuch as the said revision had been filed during pendency of the restoration application preferred by the petitioner. It has been submitted that another revision was filed assailing order dated 15.07.2013. It is during pendency of the aforesaid revision that Vishram had died and petitioner was duly substituted and petitioner has participated in the proceedings at the revisional stage.
9. The revisional Court dismissed both the revisions preferred by the predecessor in interest of petitioner by order dated 01.12.2021, against which restoration application was preferred by the petitioner which is also rejected on 25.10.2024 and both the orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
10. Only basis for assailing the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 04.08.2011, is the fact that petitioner claims that he was in joint possession of the disputed property alongwith Kalicharan and subsequently, his legal heirs. It is the case of the petitioner that alongwith Kalicharan land should have been settled in favour of petitioner also and by not doing so the authorities have committed manifest error and illegality and therefore prays that order dated 04.08.2011 be set aside alongwith orders dated 01.12.2021 and 25.10.2024.
11. When a pointed query was made to the petitioner as to whether any application under Section 122B(4)F of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, was moved by the petitioner, he fairly submitted that no such application was made either by Vishram or by him before the competent authority.
12. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that as per provisions of Section 122B(4)F of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, it is provided that where any agricultural labourer who belongs to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe category is in occupation of land vested in the Gaon Sabha which is not the land mentioned under Section 132 and such a person is in occupation over the said land before May 13, 2007 and also that in case occupation does not exceed 1.26 hectares, in such a case land can be settled in favour of such a person, treating him to be bhoomidhar with non transferable rights and in such circumstances it shall not be necessary for him to file a suit for declaration of his rights.
13. It is noticed that even though there is no provision for such a person to move an application for being conferred bhoomidhari rights with non transferable rights, but in the present case an application was moved by Kalicharan and was duly examined and reports from revenue inspector were obtained.
14. The proceedings culminated in favour of Kalicharan, finding that he was eligible and entitled under Section 122B(4)F of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Even considering the objections of the petitioner this Court do not find that any ground was taken by him either in the proceedings before the authorities below or before this Court that Kalicharan was not entitled for the benefit under Section 122B(4)F of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Claim of petitioner is that such right should be conferred on the petitioner also.
15. Accordingly, it is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any error in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Milkipur, Faizabad or by the revision authority where they have up held the grant of rights in favour of Kalicharan under Section 122B(4)F of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
16. This Court further finds that petitioner has never claimed such rights for himself by moving appropriate application before the competent authority and therefore, even if, petitioner succeeds in the proceedings, his best case would have been to deprive Kalicharan of the benefit granted to him, but still no order could have been passed in favour of petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the present case in absence of application of the petitioner.
17. It is for the aforesaid reasons, that this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders where Kalicharan has been granted bhoomidhari rights. Accordingly, to that extent present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
18. However, it is left open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the competent authority, in case petitioner seeks independent right under Section 122B(4)F of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. This Court also leaves it open to the petitioner to resort to any appropriate legal remedy with regard to his claim for being conferred bhoomidhar with non transferable rights, in case such provision exists in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or any other law which may be applicable to the petitioner.
(Alok Mathur,J.) September 12, 2025 A. Verma