Allahabad High Court
Tulsi Ram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 January, 2020
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Reserved Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39365 of 2019 Petitioner :- Tulsi Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and is directed against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Collector, whereby the petitioner's application for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the respondent no.4 was rejected and the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, whereby the consequential revision has been dismissed.
Petitioner challenged the allotment of plot no.9Ka situated in village Malak Chaturi, Pargana & Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad on the ground that he was in possession over the said land since decades. The Lekhpal and the Pradhan wrongly allotted this land to the respondents. After the allotment had been made, the petitioner had filed an application for being afforded the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act regarding this land and the same is still pending.
The Courts below have decided against the petitioner on the findings that the allotment had been made in favour of the members of the Scheduled Caste who were landless agricultural labourers in accordance with law. There was no procedural irregularities in so far as the allotment was concerned and it had been made in favour of the persons, who were eligible for allotment.
It has also been observed that the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the Act regarding plot no.9 Kha area 0.079 Hectares and plot no.9 area 0.001 hectare on 23.03.2010 and that it was not entitled to any further benefit.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders.
The petitioner in any case, is not an aggrieved person as he is possessed of land, consequent to having been granted the benefit of Sub-section 4F of Section 122B of the Act with regard to 0.080 hectare of land vide, order dated 23.03.2010. He is therefore, not an aggrieved person and hence not competent to maintain the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the resondent no.5, which in any case has been found to be an allotment made in accordance with law and in favour of eligible persons.
Since, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person, even if he was in possession over the land, which was subject matter of the allotment in favour of the respondent no.5, he is at best an unauthorized occupant.
It is settled law that the land in possession of an unauthorized occupant is deemed to be vacant for the purposes of an allotment under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. On this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In view of the foregoing and since, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020 RKM