Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19045 of 2021 Petitioner :- Brijeshwar Singh @ Brijesh Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. No one has appeared for Gaon Sabha.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 and order dated 18.12.2010 passed by respondent no. 2.
Petitioners who are four in number were allotted a plot of land being agricultural labourer after the resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee on 25.11.1990. The said resolution was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23.01.1991. Names of petitioners were mutated in the revenue records on 07.08.2004 and the name of Gaon Sabha was expunged.
According to petitioners, they are in possession over the plot in dispute from 23.01.1991 till date. It was on 14.06.2007 that is after lapse of 17 years, an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was moved by respondent no. 4 for the cancellation of the patta granted in favour of petitioners in the year 1991 on the ground that they were not entitled to be allotted the said land and it was only in the year 2004 that respondent no. 4 had come to know that the said patta was executed in favour of petitioners. An objection was filed by petitioners taking specific plea that application was barred by time in view of provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as it was moved after a lapse of 17 years from the date of allotment and the statutory period provided for initiating such proceedings was only 5 years. The Collector/respondent no. 2 proceeded to cancel the allotment made in favour of petitioner on the strength that names of petitioners were mutated in the revenue records after a lapse of 12 years and all the petitioners are real brothers and if the land is allotted to them then the said allotment would exceed the prescribed limit of the land being held by allottee.
Against the order of cancellation, a revision was preferred under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was dismissed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that petitioners were holding land in excess of the prescribed limit and further in the written argument submitted by contesting respondent no. 4 the allottees, Surendra Singh and Narendra Singh, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were minor at the time of allotment.
Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that no allotment can be made in favour of a minor and moreover the approval granted by Sub Divisional Officer was incorporated in the revenue records only in the year 2004, as such, bar of sub-section 6 of Section 198(4) of the Act will not come into play.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it transpires that after the approval of Sub Divisional Officer on 23.01.1991, which is not disputed to either of the parties as well as to the State, the consequential entry in the revenue record was made in the year 2004. The plea taken by respondent no. 4 as well as the order of Collector does not hold ground as it was the revenue authorities to have incorporated the approval granted by Sub Divisional Officer in the revenue records and the petitioners were not at fault.
It is unfortunate that revenue officers of the State take so long time in incorporating the orders in the revenue record for which the poor residents cannot be blamed. The bar under Section 198(6) of the Act is clear that no proceedings for cancellation of patta can be initiated after lapse of 5 years from the date of allotment/approval.
In the present case, approval was granted by Sub Divisional Officer on 23.01.1991, thus, Collector was not correct to hold that names were mutated in revenue records after lapse of 12 years. It is not the fault of petitioners but the revenue authorities are liable for such delay.
The second argument of learned counsel for respondent no. 4 that petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were minor and the Commissioner has recorded the said finding on the strength of written submission made by the contesting respondent also does not hold any ground as no chance of rebuttal was provided to the petitioners for the averment made in the written argument which was submitted subsequent to the hearing of the matter.
Moreso, respondent no. 4 has not taken any of the grounds argued before this Court in his application filed under Section 198(4) for cancellation of patta. It was for the first time that such plea has been raised before the revisional authority as well as before this Court.
Further, petitioners had taken specific objection as to the application being time barred but both the revenue authorities i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 failed to address the said issue raised by petitioners which goes to the root of the case as no proceedings could have been initiated after a lapse of 5 years from the date of approval i.e. 23.01.1991. The proceedings initiated for cancellation in the year 2007 was barred by limitation as it was moved after a lapse of 11 years. Both the Collector as well as revisional authority skipped to record any finding on the objection raised by petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the application filed by respondent no. 4 under Section 198(4) was highly time barred and is against the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 198 of the Act which both the revenue authorities failed to consider.
In view of above, impugned orders dated 24.02.2021 and 18.12.2010 are hereby quashed.
Writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 V.S.Singh