Heard Sri Nirmal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rachna Gupta, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the Bhoodan Yagna Simiti Raebareli donated 7 bigha land of Khasra plot No. 2565 Minjumla situated in village Bela Khara, Pergana, Tehsil and District Raebareli in the year 1972 to the petitioner under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan yagna Act, 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act') . In pursuance of said fact, land in question has been recorded in the revenue record in the name of petitioner and he was paying revenue dues to the Irrigation/ Revenue Department.
On 13.8.1990 ( Annexure no.7) a notice has been issued to the petitioner that why the land allotted to him under the Act may not be cancelled. On 15.6.1991, petitioner filed an objection .
By means of impugned order dated 19.9.1994 ( Annexure no.14) Collector , Raebareli cancelled the land allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said facts, present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court.
Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, submits that by means of Certificate/ Donation Deed dated 13.1.1972 Simiti has given the land to the petitioner as landless person in Khali Sahat , Raebareli . In order to establish the said fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the documents as contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition and on the basis of the same it is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that same has been given to the petitioner for agriculture purpose, because he has been recorded as 'Seerdar'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after donation has been made to the petitioner, he started cultivation and also deposited the revenue to the concerned authority i.e. Irrigation / Revenue Department.
Sri Nirmal Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner,while pressing the relief as claimed by the petitioner , submits that in the notice dated 13.8.1990 , the reasoning given for cancellation of land granted by way of donation is to the effect that " Bahar ke Niwasi hai patra vyakti nahi hai" He submits that the said reasoning on the basis of which the impugned notice has been given , is totally incorrect and wrong . The said reasoning has been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner while submitting his reply/ objection dated 15.6.1991 to the said notice has stated therein that there was no such requirement prevailing at the relevant time when the land in question was given by way of donation to the petitioner that he should be the resident of the same village , so the reasoning given in the notice that the petitioner is ineligible for grant of land , is incorrect because the petitioner is landless person .
Sri Nirmal Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that entire proceedings of the present case are contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 15A of the Act read with Rule 14 of the U.P. Bhodan Yagna Rules,1953 . In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Doodh Nath and others Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Rural, Allahabad and others, 2003(95) RD 304. Accordingly , he submits that the impugned order is illegal arbitrary in nature , liable to be set aside.
Smt. Rachna Gupta, learned State Counsel while defending the impugned order submits that the petitioner is not a landless person which is evident from the perusal of the impugned order dated 19.9.1994 passed by Collector , Raebareli, wherein it has been specifically stated that petitioner is doing business of 'Vaidh' as such he is not entitled for grant / donation of land in question by Bhoodan Yagna Simiti, hence there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case , I feel appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of Section 14, 15 and 15-A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 which govern the filed in the matter in question , the same are quoted as under:-
"14. Grant of land to landless person.- [(1)] The Committee or such other authority or person as the Committee with the approval of the State Government , specify either generally or in respect to any area, may , in the manner prescribed , grant lands which have vested in it to the [landless agricultural labourers] and the grantee of the land shall-
(I)where the land is situate in any state which has vested in the State Government under and in accordance with section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, acquire in such land the right and the liabilities of a [bhumidhar with non-transferable rights] and the grantee of the land shall (II)where it is situate in any other area, acquire therein such rights and liabilities and subject to such conditions, restrictions and limitations as may be prescribed and shall have effect, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.
[(2)] Where the committee or other authority or person as aforesaid fails to grant any land in accordance with sub-section (1) within a period of three years from the date of vesting of such land in the committee or from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, whichever is later, the Collector may himself grant such land to the landless agricultural labourers in the manner prescribed, and thereupon the grantee shall acquire the rights and liabilities mentioned in sub-section (1) as if the grant were made by the committee itself.
(3)[***] (4) In making grant of land under this section, the committee or other authority or person as aforesaid or the Collector, as the case may be , shall observe the following principles:
(a) At least fifty percent of the land available for grant shall be granted to persons belonging to the Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging to the Kol, Pathari, Khairwar, Baiga, Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and such other tribes as the State Government on the recommendation of the committee may notify in this behalf;
(b) The land situate in one village shall , as for as possible, be granted to persons residing in that very village.
15. Grant to be made in accordance with Bhoodan Yagna Scheme.- All grants shall be made as for as may be in accordance with the Scheme of Bhoodan Yagna.
15-A.Cancellation of certain grants.- (1) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the report of the committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14, whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna( Amendment) Act, 1975 inquire into such grant, and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or fraud, he may-
(I)cancel the grant, and on such cancellation , notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law for the time being in force , the rights, title and interest of the grantee or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and the land shall revert to the committee; and
(ii) direct delivery of possession of such land to the committee after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, and may for that purpose use or cause to the used such force as may be necessary.
(2) Notice of every proceeding under sub-section(1) shall be given to the committee , and any representation made by the committee in relation thereto shall be taken into consideration by the Collector.
(3) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) except after giving an opportunity of being heard to the grantee or any person known to the Collector to be claiming under him.
(4) The order of the Collector passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive."
Before amendment of Section 14 by the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna( Amendment) Act, 1975 the word which existed therein was "landless person" but by way of said amendment same has been substituted by " landless agricultural labourers" . Moreover, Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Rules, 1953 provides as under:-
"14 Rights to liabilities of persons to whom land is granted.-(1) The Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall execute a donation deed which may be in the form as in Appendix VII.
(2) The grantee of land in the areas to which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, does not apply shall acquire such right and liabilities as the committee may confer under the law. The grantee shall be subject to the following conditions, restrictions , and limitations:
(a) the grantee shall pay the rent to the Committee in such installments and on such dates as the Committee may specify;
(b) the grantee shall not be entitled to sublet or transfer the land; and
(c) the grantee shall not be entitled to use the land for any purpose other than for which it was granted."
Reverting the facts of the present case, admittedly in the present case, the land in question has been granted to the petitioner by way of donation in the year 1972 by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Raebareli and at the relevant point of time in Section 14 of the Act which deals with grant to landless person without providing the condition in respect to grant of land under the Act as " person should be landless person".
Now the question which is to be considered to decide the controversy involved in the present case is whether the petitioner is landless person when the donation has been made to him in respect to the land in question by the Bhoodan Yagna Simiti.
In order to decide the said controversy , the aim and object of the Act which has been enacted under the Act 1952, it has been seen what the same provides as under:-
"In the last cold weather Acharya Vinoba Bhave started the Bhoodan Yagna movement with a view to obtain land so that it could be distributed among the landless person of the State. The response of the people of the State very encouraging. The Zamindars as well as the tenants donated their land to Acharyaji. There were, however, certain legal difficulties. The donations made by the Zimindars were defective according to the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, 1950. The tenants did not possess any right to transfer their land by gift. The Bill is intended to remove these and certain other legal difficulties and to ensure the achievement of the object of this movement. Both in regard to the donations of land to the Bhoodan Yagna and its distribution to the landless person."
Thus, the intention of the legislature in framing the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 is to grant land to landless person who are bedded to the soil or who have attachment with the soil in any form and who have know how about the soil. Philosophy that the land must go to the tiller has been implemented in so many countries and reasonably in India to implement preamble of the Constitution i.e. to achieve social justice and to secure distributive justice under Article 38 of the Constitution of India.
Hon'ble thje Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti Vs. Graj Kishore and others, 1988 RD 363 has held as under:-
" It is now well settled that in order to interpret a law one must understand the background and the purpose for which the law as enacted. And in this context as indicated earlier if one has bothered to understand the common phrase use in the Bhoodan Movement as 'Bhomihin Kissan' which has been translated into English to mean ' landless persons' there would have been no difficultly but apart from it even as contended by learned counsel that it was clearly indicated by Section 15 that the allotment could only be made in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan and the movement of Sri Vinoba Bhave, it would be worthwhile to quote from 'Vinoba and His Mission' by Suresh Ram Printed with an introduction by Sri Jaya Prakash Narain and foreword by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan. In this work, statement of annual Sarvodaya conference at Sevapuri has been quoted as under:-
" The fundamental principle of the Bhoodan Yagna Movement is that all children of the soil have an equal right over the Mother Earth, in the same way as those born of a mother have over her. It is, therefore, essential that the entire land of the country should be equitably redistributed a new providing roughly at least five acre of dry land or one acre of wet land to every family. The Sarvodaya Samaj, by appealing to the good sense of people , should prepare their minds for this equitable distribution and acquire within the next two years at least 25 lakhs of acres of land from about five acres per village. This land will be distributed to those landless labourers who are versed in agriculture, want to take to it, and have no other means of subsistence."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a landless labourer, thus the land has rightly been allotted to him, is not a correct submission as from the material on record i.e. the statement as given by the petitioner/ Mathura Prasad ( DW-1) which is annexed as Annexure no.12 to the Writ Petition in which it has been specifically submitted by him that:-
" Mai Bail khara main Vaidhkiya karta tha , bahar bhi Vaidhkiya karta hoo."
On addition to above said facts Sri Ram Pal has been produced as witness ( DW-2 ) on behalf of the petitioner and during his evidence he has categorically stated that We are doing labour work for sowing and harvesting the crop on the land of petitioner/Mathura Prasad. Accordingly from the said findings , it is clearly established that the petitioner is doing business of 'Vaidh' . Moreover, in the present case , Collector, Raibareli while passing the impugned order has also taken into consideration the said facts as well as on the basis of material evidence on record that the petitioner is 'Vaidh' and not a landless person and on the basis of said findings on record, has held that he is not entitled for getting the land in question given by Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, so the same cannot be said to be neither perverse in nature nor contrary to the facts on record.
It is settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere in the findings recorded by the court below only if the same is contrary to the facts on record or perverse in nature . The said two positions does not exits in the present case.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case Noor Ali and others Vs. Additional District Magistrate( Executive) , Varanasi and others, 1997 (88) RD 456 in para 11 in identical circumstances has held as under:-
"The Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are landless agriculture labourers is also not accepted as evidence on record and finding given by the Collector shows that their main source of livelihood is not agricultural work. How a person working in Tea Stall or as domestic servant and who does not know operation of agricultural mainly can become landless agricultural labourer all of a sudden ? He further made emphasis that the main source of livelihood of the petitioners is agricultural labourers or cultivation as labour. The petitioners do not satisfy the fundamental conditions of Explanation of Section 14 of the Act. It is also not clear that whether their holding does not exceed 1 acre in Bhoodan Yagna. So land was granted in ignoring the basic/fundamental condition of statute and the Collector was right within his power to the grant . It is not a case of no evidence where the Collector has given its finding. The Collector has exercised the power after giving an opportunity of hearing."
Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present case , after the issue of show cause notice to the petitioner, entire proceedings for cancellation of patta have been conducted by the Collector, Raibareli , so the petitioner cannot avail any benefit from the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Doodh Nath and others ( Supra) . I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition.
No other point has been argued or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the result , the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.8.2012 dk/