Allahabad High Court
Badan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 October, 2019
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16001 of 2006 Petitioner :- Badan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ranjeet Kumar Mishra,V.K. Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.164913 of 2010 Substitution application is allowed.
Let appropriate amendments be carried out forthwith.
Order on Writ Petition Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
This petition impugns the order dated 31 January 2006 in terms of which the Revisional Authority has proceeded to frame directions for the eviction of the petitioner under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 ["the 1950 Act"]. It appears from the record that the petitioner claims to have purchased the plot in question on 16 December 1964. He is also stated to have constructed a Pakka house thereon and asserts having lived there since 1965. The proceedings which were initially drawn by the Tehsildar, came to be dropped on 24 November 2001. The Tehsildar principally rested his decision on the finding that since the petitioner had been in continuous possession of the plot for the past 37 years, it would be inequitable to direct his eviction. It is also relevant to note that although the Tehsildar appears to allude to the statutory protection accorded by Section 122-B(4F) of the 1950 Act, the said provision, undisputedly, applies only to agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who may have been in occupation of land other than that mentioned in Section 132 of the 1950 Act from before the prescribed date. The petitioner does not claim to be a member of either the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. The provision made in sub-section (4F), consequently, has no application.
The order of the Tehsildar was subjected to challenge by the Gram Sabha in revision which has been allowed in terms of the impugned order of the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector had principally noted that during the course of consolidation operations, Plot No.127 was accorded new nos. 101, 102, 104B, 105 and 106. The Additional Collector notes that all these plots stood reserved for a public utility. It is in that backdrop that he proceeded to order the eviction of the petitioner.
Significantly, the petitioner never asserted his title or possessory right over the plot in question in the course of consolidation operations. In those proceedings, the plots in question came to be earmarked for a public purpose thus falling within the ambit of Section 132. The orders passed in those proceedings were never assailed by the petitioner. In view thereof it is manifest that the petitioner cannot be recognised to have acquired any rights over those plots. In any case, no prescriptive or possessory rights can be obtained or acquired in respect of land which stands secured for one or more of the public purposes enumerated in Section 132 of the 1950 Act. He would thus be liable to be viewed to be in unauthorised possession of public utility land and consequently liable to eviction.
The Court also takes note of the recital appearing in the impugned order to the effect that the sale deed of 1964 appeared to have been executed without the permission of the consolidation authorities thus breaching the restriction enshrined in Section 5(1((c)(ii) [as it then stood] of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 . The Court also bears in mind the provisions made in Section 45A of the 1953 Act which clearly provides that a transfer made in violation of Section 5 would not be valid and not recognized. While learned counsel has sought to dispute that recital and would contend that the sale deed was not hit by Section 5 of that Act, the Court finds it unnecessary to go into this question since the principal question which would remain for consideration would be the right of the petitioner to possess the plot in question notwithstanding it having been reserved for a public utility purpose.
That the plots would fall within the ambit of Section 132 of the 1950 Act was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court notes that there was an abject failure on the part of the petitioner to establish his right over the plot in question either during the consolidation proceedings or even before this Court. The land, admittedly, came to be recorded as reserved for a public purpose thus falling within the ambit of Section 132 of the 1950 Act. In view of the above, the order passed by the revisional authority merits no interference.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner may be accorded liberty to seek "exchange" in terms of Section 161 of the 1950 Act by offering land of equivalence to the Gram Sabha. On being asked to indicate the nature of the land that was proposed to be offered, learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner would have to first purchase land in the village and then initiate proceedings for exchange. An offer for exchange cannot be left to hinge upon a proposed purchase. It necessarily would have to be an offer to be considered with respect to land held in praesenti. It is thus evident that even this liberty cannot be accorded.
The petition consequently fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Vivek Kr.