Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.5.
By means of this writ petition, challenge has been made to a decision taken by the Tehsil authorities, which is annexed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition, whereby it has been ordered that the names of the petitioners be expunged from the khatauni and the land in question be recorded as Naveen Parti /river.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are valid patta holders and without taking or drawing any proceeding for cancellation of pattas duly executed in favour of the petitioners, the impugned decision has been taken, which is contrary to law.
The facts of the case, which can be gathered from perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto are that the pattas in respect of agricultural land were granted to 63 persons on a proposal made by the Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti in the year 1997, which was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21.01.1997. It appears that an application was made to the Sub-Divisional Officer that out of 63 patta holders, 30 persons did not reside in the village and as such they were wrongly allotted the said pattas for the reason that the said persons did not fall in the order of preference as given in Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. On the said complaint, 30 pattas were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 4.9.1997 not in any judicial proceedings but perhaps on the administrative side.
Against the said order of the cancellation of pattas by the Sub-Divisional Officer, 8 individual patta holders (not including the petitioners) had filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said revision petition was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow vide order dated 14.12.2005, whereby the order of cancellation of said pattas was set aside and the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to reconsider the matter and send the matter to the appropriate court for cancellation of said Pattas. The said order dated 15.12.2005 is on record as Annexure 3 to this writ petition.
It is not clear as to whether pursuant to the order of the revisional Court dated 14.12.2005, appropriate proceedings have been drawn for cancellation of Pattas under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order for cancelling the Pattas was set aside by the revisional court vide its order dated 14.12.2005 and thereafter on an application made by the petitioners whereby their names were recorded in the revenue record on the basis of the pattas proposed in the year 1997, which has been approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21.01.1997.
What we notice from the facts of this case is that without drawing any proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or under the corresponding provisions for cancellation of agricultural pattas under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by the impugned decision it has been ordered that the name the petitioners be expunged from the record. Such a recourse, in our considered opinion, is impermissible under law, that is why the revisional Court vide its order dated 14.12.2005 has earlier set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the Pattas. In the instant case as well, though the petitioners had not preferred any revision petition against the order of cancellation of pattas passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, however, as observed above, the proceedings for cancelling the pattas executed in favour of the petitioners, under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or any other corresponding provisions under the U.P. Revenue Code have not been drawn.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to observe that so far as the validity of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whereby the pattas in respect of 30 individuals were cancelled is concerned, the same having been passed not in proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, cannot be permitted to be sustained. However, we may simultaneously observe that since the pattas executed in respect of 30 persons have come under a shadow, as such appropriate proceedings in respect of these 30 pattas are necessary to be drawn under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or any other corresponding provision available under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct that appropriate proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or under the corresponding provisions in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall be drawn not only against the petitioners but against all the 30 individuals in respect of whom complaint was made that they have wrongly been granted pattas. If such proceeding in respect of 8 individuals, who had filed a revision petition before the Revisional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow for cancellation of pattas under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or in any provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 has been drawn, the scope of the said proceedings shall be enlarged by the competent Court and the petitioners and also all 30 individuals shall be issued notices and after hearing the parties, validity of the pattas executed in their favour as proposed by the Land Managing Committee in the year 1997 and approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21.01.1997 shall be examined in those proceedings.
Till the proceeding to be instituted under this order or the proceedings if already instituted under Section 198(4) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or under the equivalent provisions under the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 are concluded, the parties shall maintain status quo on the spot.
We make it clear that the claim of the respective parties, will be adequately and appropriately determined by the authority / court concerned in the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or equivalent provision which may be available under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006. Such proceedings shall be expedited and, as far as possible, concluded within a period of 12 months.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Learned State Counsel as also the counsel for Bhumi Prabandhan Committee shall communicate this order to the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 S. Kumar