Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15473 of 2018 Petitioner :- Geetam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Manu Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3.
Notice need not be issued to the private respondent no.4, in view of the order proposed to be passed.
The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction restraining the fourth respondent, Pokh Pal from transferring any land of the disputed plot no. 306 (M) till the pendency of the matter before the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Etah pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 8.1.2018 passed in Writ-B No.62651 of 2017 ( Pokh Pal Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & 23 others).
Record in question reflects that the father of respondent no.4 was allotted an agricultural lease in the year of 1965. The said allotment was challenged by some persons and finally, same was cancelled by the Additional Collector, Etah vide order dated 31.7.1987 in Case No. 215, under Section 198(4) of UP ZA&LR Act. After cancellation of the aforesaid lease, the Gaon Sabha passed a a resolution for allotment of the land/plot no. 306(M), area 2.00 acre, in favour of the petitioner as agricultural lease and the same was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 29.7.1988. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was also recorded in the revenue record. He has further made submission that the order dated 31.7.1987 was challenged by the respondent no.4 by preferring a Revision No.
125 of 1989. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Agra Division, Agra referred the matter on 5.12.1990 to the Board of Revenue. Finally, the Board of Revenue heard the matter on 17.1.1994 and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide it afresh. Again the trial court rejected the claim of the respondent no.4 on 20.1.2012. The said order was challenged in Appeal before the Commissioner. The said appeal was allowed on 2.2.2013 and the matter was again remanded back to the trial court for deciding it afresh. Against the order dated 2.2.2013, the respondent no.4 filed Revision No. 30/ 2012-13 before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and the same was dismissed on 21.4.2017. Both the orders were challenged before this Court by preferring Writ -B No. 62651 of 2017 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 8.1.2018, with following observations:-
"The proceeding against the petitioner was initiated under Section 198(4) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of Patta allotted by the Gaon Sabha to the petitioner in 1965.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21 April 2017 passed by the first respondent, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, in Revision No. 30 of 2012-13, Pokhpal Versus State and other, whereby, order dated 2 February 2013, passed by the second respondent, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Aligarh Division, Aligarh, remanding the matter to the court of third respondent, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Etah, to decide afresh in the light of the observations made in the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a right has accrued to the petitioner in lieu of allotting the plot of land to the petitioner in 1965.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute that till date no order has been passed on the merit cancelling the patta granted to the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned remand order.
The writ petition, on consent, is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the third respondent, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Etah, to decide the matter, expeditiously preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided there is no legal impediment.
It is clarified that the third respondent, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Etah, shall pass the order, strictly on merit without being influenced by any observation made on merit in the impugned order. Rival contention on merit is kept open.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after cancellation of lease of respondent no.4 on 31.7.1987, the Gaon Sabha passed the resolution for allotment of agricultural lease of the land in question and the same was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 29.7.1988. His name was also recorded in the revenue record. The cancellation order dated 31.7.1987 was challenged by the respondent no.4 in the Revision and the matter has been remanded back to the competent authority for deciding it afresh. It is requested that till finalization of the aforesaid proceeding, the respondent no.4 may be restrained not to create any third party interest in the property.
Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, states that so far as right of the petitioner is concerned, probably after settlement of the aforesaid lease at no point of time he has agitated the matter and once the respondent no.4 has agitated the matter and finally the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 8.1.2018 asking the Additional Collector/ Additional District Magistrate( Finance & Revenue), Etah to decide the matter within six months, then at this stage the petitioner cannot be given any audience in the aforesaid proceeding.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that after cancellation of lease of the respondent no.4, the resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha for allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner and same was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 29.7.1988. Thereafter, the land in question was recorded in his name in the revenue record. In such situation, this Court is of the considered opinion that in case the aforesaid proceeding has not been finalized, the petitioner must have right to have audience in the said proceeding as he is aggrieved party.
In view of the above, on consent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally, with a direction to the second respondent to expedite the matter, in case the aforesaid proceedings have not been finalized till date, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 RKP