JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 12.6.2003 and 24.6.2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and the order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). The petitioner claims to be Educational Institution who claims allotment of plot No. 1011-Kha. An application was filed for cancellation of the lease under Section 198(4) which was allowed by Additional Collector. It was held by Additional Collector that institution do not come in any of the categories as mentioned under Section 198(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to whom lease can be granted.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 198(1) only enumerate the preference and there is no prohibition regarding allotment in favour of Educational Institutions. The Counsel for the petitioner next contended that Patta was cancelled by Additional, District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) and in view of the Division Bench judgment reported in 1996 RD 190, Shiv Avtar v. Ravi, the Additional Collector does not mean Collector and the Additional , Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the lease.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Section 198(1) contemplates admission of persons to land. There is no dispute that petitioner does not fall in any of the categories. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that even though he does not fall in any of the categories under Section 198(1), there is no prohibition in the Act for allotment in favour of the petitioner.
5. Admission to land as contemplated under Sections 195 and 197 has to be made in accordance with the preference as mentioned in Section 198. The admission to land under Sections 195, 197 and 198 is for a specific purpose. Object is to allot land to certain category of persons which are mentioned in the Section 198. This Court has occasion to consider the provisions pertaining to allotment of land for housing site under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. This Court in 2002(93) RD 30, Yog Sansthan v. Collector, Moradabad, has held that allotment of land for housing sites refers to natural person. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment also covers the object and purpose of allotment under Sections 195, 197 and 198 also. Petitioner is not covered by any of the categories, mentioned in Section 198(1), he is not entitled for allotment and no error has been committed by the respondent in cancelling the lease of the petitioner.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner referring to Sections 195 and 197 has submitted that said sections do not lay down any limitation and the word used in the said section is "any person". Sections 195 and 197 are extracted below :
"195. Admission to land.-The (Land Management Committee) (with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the subdivision) shall have the right to admit any person as (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) to any land (other than land being in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132) where-
(a) the land is vacant land,
(b) the land is vested in the (Gaon Sabha) under Section 117, or
(c) the land has come into the possession of (Land Management Committee) under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act."
"197. Admission to land mentioned in Section 132.-(1) 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 asami to any land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132 where-
(a) the land is vacant land,
(b) the land is vested in the (Land Management Committee), or
(c) the land has come into the possession of the (Land Management Committee) under Section 194 or under any other provision of the Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the right to admit any person as asami of any tank, pond or other land, covered by water shall be regulated by the rules made under this Act."
7. Section 198(1) provides that in the admission of person to land as (Bhumidhari with non-transferable right) or asami under Section 195 or Section 197, the land Managing Committee shall observe the order of preference as given in said Sub-section. Section 198(1) itself clarify that admission of persons to land as mentioned in Sections 195 and 197 is subject to provisions of Section 198(1). Section 198(1) enumerates various categories of persons who are entitled to be admitted to land. The categories which have been mentioned are with specific objects. The allotment of land is not open to any person. The scheme of allotment as provided under Sections 195, 197 and 198 read together makes it clear that admission to land is restricted to the categories mentioned in Section 198(1). A person who is not covered in any of the categories cannot claim allotment. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled for allotment thus cannot be accepted.
8. The second submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the lease. Division Bench judgment relied by the Counsel for the petitioner do support to contention of the Counsel for the petitioner. However, it is well settled that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not interfere with an order the effect of which is to restore a illegal order. The Additional Collector has observed that allotment of land in favour of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act. Interfering with the order of Additional Collector will be restoration of an illegal order and this Court even if the order of Additional Collector was not within his jurisdiction will not exercise its discretion for restoring an illegal order.
9. The Apex Court in AIR 1966 SC 828, Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., has observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction, the affect of which is to restore an illegal order. The relevant Paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below :
"(17) The result of the discussion may be stated thus; The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajigudem. The representatives of the said Village did not comply with the necessary conditions for such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed; the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review an order made under Section 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem Village. In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order-it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercised its extraordinary discretionary' power in the circumstances of the case."
10. The Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that by U.P. Ordinance No. 4 of 2002, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been amended by substituting Clause (h) to the following effect:
"(h) any educational institution situated within the terminal area of the Kshettra Panchayat as established by a persons belonging to a Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribes on such terms and condition as may be prescribed."
11. The aforesaid Ordinance No. 4 of 2002 was promulgated on June 21, 2002. The said Ordinance has already been repealed by U.P. Act No. II of 2002 and Clause (h) which has added/substituted in Section 198(1) has not been retained in the amendment Act. Furthermore the said Ordinance does not help the petitioner in any manner since firstly, the petitioner do not belong to Scheduled Caste and secondly, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was made much earlier to above Ordinance. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner based on Clause (h) of Section 198(1) as substituted by U.P. Ordinance No. 4 of 2002 is misconceived.
12. None of the submission as raised by the Counsel for the petitioner has any substance. No good grounds have been made out for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 in the facts of present case.
13. The writ petition is rejected summarily.