Court No.37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11172 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gajraj Singh Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Meerut And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Babu Lal Ram,Mahesh Narain Singh,R.C. Singh,Ram Surat Saroj Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for the quashing of the order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar and the orders dated 8.7.2017 and 20.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.
The petitioner had filed an application for the cancellation of a patta which was allotted to the mother of respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 namely Smt. Brijesh under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that she was not a resident of village Yakubpur as she was married to one Vinod who was a resident of village Sahjabas, Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon. It was the case of the petitioner that Smt. Brijesh could not be called a resident of the area at the time when the allotment was made to her in the year 1997 and, therefore, the petitioner who was the applicant in the Court below had stated that since fraudulently the patta with regard to plot no.28 was allotted to the mother of the respondents, the same be cancelled. This application under section 198(4) of the Act was filed in the year 2017. When the case was taken up by the Additional Collector, he looked into the records and found that even though the mother of the respondents Smt. Brijesh had got married to Vinod, she had, after she was deserted by her husband, returned to her parental house at Yakubpur and after having found that there was no fraudulent act on her part, had rejected the application of the petitioner. The Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 8.7.2017 and thereafter the Review Application filed by him was again dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the voters' list etc. had indicated that the mother of the respondents was residing with her husband in village Sahjabas, Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon and, therefore, under section 198(1)(c) of the Act she was not eligible for being given the patta. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the patta was given on the basis of fraud, no limitation would come in the way of filing of the application under section 198(4) of the Act. Further he submitted that since it was writ large that the mother of the respondents was not living in village Yakubpur, she was not an eligible person under section 198(1)(c) of the Act.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the patta was granted in the year 1997. He submitted that only because the respondents' land was contiguous to the land of the petitioner and he wanted the respondents to sell off the land that the petitioner raked up the issue in the year 2017. He, therefore, submitted that the whole proceeding was malicious. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner under section 198(4) of the Act could not be a "person aggrieved" and, therefore, could not have filed the application under section 198(4) of the Act. He further submitted that the Gaon Sabha had lost its identity as the land was now situate in the area which was notified as an industrial township and, therefore, under Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, the Gaon Sabha had lost its identity as the Panchayat Raj Act was no longer to be pressed in that area. The further contention of learned counsel for the respondents was that the allegation that the mother of the respondents was not a divorcee, was of no consequence as under section 198(1)(c) of the Act, a person who was landless and was living therein could be granted a patta.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there was a definite finding that the husband Vinod, in a statement made in the year 1997, had stated that he had forsaken his wife. He further submitted that the Collector had found that the children of late Smt. Brijesh had taken admission in village Yakubpur after they had left their father's house. Further, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the death of late Smt. Brijesh, it would be irrelevant to get evidence of the fact that whether she was a widow or a divorcee and, therefore, a belated application was absolutely not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents still further submitted that the respondents under section 131(B) of the Act were now bhumidhars with transferable rights and, therefore, the cancellation of the patta would be of no avail whatsoever.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, counsel for the private respondents and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, this Court is of the view that firstly the petitioners were not "persons aggrieved" and secondly, the application was absolutely barred by limitation and also the person against whom allegations of fraud were being alleged was dead and gone in the year 1999.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any error in the order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Additional Collector and the orders dated 8.7.2017 and 20.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.05.2019 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)