Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.5.1996, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste Community and petitioners were found in possession over the plot in question before the relevant date accordingly, benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was granted to the petitioners in proper manner. He further submitted that on the basis of the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the name of the petitioners were accordingly recorded in the revenue record. He placed the copy of the 'Khatauni' annexed as annexure no. 1 to the instant petition in order to demonstrate that in the remark column particular of the order granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been mentioned to record the name of the petitioners as 'Bhoomidhar' with non transferable rights. He next submitted that the recall application has been filed against the order dated 31.01.1994 in place of initiating proper proceeding as held by this Court in the Case reported in 2018(141) R.D. 750 Navmi Lal Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and Others as well as Case reported in 2014 (122) RD 677 Smt. Reshma Devi and others Versus Commissioner and others. He submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra) & Navmi Lal (Supra), the Recall/Restoration Application cannot be entertained against the order granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that Additional Commissioner has rightly sent the reference for allowing the revision, but Board of Revenue has rejected the references in arbitrary manner. He next submitted that petitioners are still in possession over the plot in question on the basis of the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such the impugned order should be set aside and the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act should be maintained.

Explanation.- The expression 'agricultural labourer' shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 198.]"

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4102 Manorey alias Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue & others has considered the scope of the proceeding under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Relevant paragraphs of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Moneray (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which are as under:-

?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.

12. This Court in the Case of Navmi Lal (Supra) & Reshma Devi (Supra) has held that after granting the benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the proper procedure is to apply under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act rather to file the recall/ restoration against the order granting the benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioners have been granted interim order by this Court in the year 1996 and petitioners are continuing in possession over the plot in question. Paragraph No. 11 of the Judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Navmi Lal (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-

13. Paragraph No. 11 of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra) will be also relevant for perusal which is as under:-

?11.The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding of cancellation of the allotment of land under Section 122B(4F) could not be initiated, under Sub-Section 4 of Section 198 is misconceived for the reason that under Section 122B(4F), the person is admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable right of the land under Section 195 and Section 198 takes care of Section 195 and 197 both, therefore sub-section (4) of Section 198 would be applicable with respect to both i.e. allotment of land under Section 195 or 197 of the Act.?