Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35931 of 2014 Petitioner :- Padum Singh Respondent :- Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Rai,R.K.Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Collector, Gorakhpur dated 11.08.2010 and the order passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 17.04.2014, whereby, the order rejecting the complaint of the petitioner for cancellation of lease in respect of respondent no. 3 has been confirmed.
3. Briefly stated facts are that the Gaon Sabha executed a lease in respect of plot no. 478/03 vide resolution dated 03.03.2003. The petitioner who had a house, as he claims to be adjacent to the house in question, set up his claim over the land on the ground that he had Khunta and Nad established over the land and that the land was appurtenant to his house. He further set up a claim that the allottee was closely related to the Pradhan of the village who is also the Chairman of Land Management committee, inasmuch as, the procedure adopted by the Land Management Committee in conducting its meeting on the very next date of the public announcement, was not a procedure prescribed under law. In a nut shell, he raised his objection to the effect that Gaon Sabha mainly the Chairman of Land Management Committee allotted the lease to the respondent no. 3 in a hush hush manner. The complaint was initially considered by the Additional Collector and vide order dated 19.11.1987, he cancelled the lease holding that the lease was not given to a person eligible and entitled under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the order of preference, inasmuch as, the procedure adopted was not proper.
4. The Commissioner, on revision being filed by the lease holder, found the order of the Additional Collector to be faulty and accordingly made reference to the Board of Revenue in favour of the allottee. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference and set aside the order of Additional Collector, Gorakhpur dated 19.11.1987, however, at the same time directed him to decide the matter afresh and ascertain the actual date of Munadi in the matter and further directed that the matter be decided after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Collector, Gorakhpur thereafter proceeded to decide the matter by giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the ultimate finding, the Collector, Gorakhpur has come to record three points very categorically:
(i) The land in question was recorded as Banjar in Gata No. 151, so it was a Gaon Sabha Land. Then he recorded a finding to the effect that the meeting in fact of the Gaon Sabha was held at the door of the residence of the Gram Pradhan and of which an agenda was issued on 25.02.1983 and proper communication and notice was made to the members of Gaon Sabha;
(ii) that the public announcement of the proposed meeting for the purposes of allotment of Gaon Sabha land was made by beat of drums on 02.03.1983; and
(iii) In a meeting held on 08.03.1983 when the eligibility list was prepared by the Land Management Committee members with the Chairman of Land Management Committee, then the letter was also received from the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in which the application of Chandrika and Aabhe i.e. respondent no. 3 both sons of Jalesar who had applied for lease for construction of house and after due consideration of the said application by the members, then Aabhe son of Jalesar was considered to be the most eligible person for allotment of land. Aabhe, the third respondent herein, had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 45/- with the Gaon Sabha and that after the proposal was carried out by the Gaon Sabha then the same was forwarded to Sub-Divisional Magistrate through proper channel by Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate accorded its approval on 23.03.1983.
5. The aforesaid three findings of facts were assailed by the present petitioner by filing revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner considered the revision of the present petition on merits and held that there was no perversity in the ultimate findings returned by the Collector. No procedural flaw was detected in the proceedings conducted by the Land Management Committee for the allotment purposes and therefore, there was no question of any interference with the ultimate order of the approval granted to the same by Sub- Divisional Magistrate.
6. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities while under remand, did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner in correct prospective. Much emphasis has been laid upon the arguments that the person who was allotted Gaon Sabha land was closely related to the then Chairman of the Land Management Committee/ Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The second argument is that the land was not a vacant land and it was in possession of the present petitioner and was being used as Sahen and therefore, the allotment could not have been considered in respect of the land in question.
7. Per contra, the argument of learned Standing Counsel is that there are cogent and convincing findings of fact returned by the Collector which cannot be assailed by the present petitioner in the writ petition by means of any such ground which may be considered to have escaped the scanning eye of Collector while passing the order impugned, he therefore, justifies the order passed by the Collector, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur as well as Commissioner, Gorakhpur for the reasons assigned therein.
8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and their arguments across the bar and having perused the various orders and pleadings raised in the writ petition, I find that the focal point for the consideration as far as the objection of the petitioner was that the allottee was closely related to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and therefore, he could not have been allotted the lease of Gaon Sabha Land. The second argument vociferously was also argued that the land was in fact not a vacant land and was in possession of the petitioner.
9. Testing the two arguments on the basis of pleadings so raised and the objections so filed before the authorities below, I find that though the petitioner had made an objection to the effect that the allottee was close relative and within the prohibited degree of the relationship with the Chairman of Land Management Committee but there is no evidence brought on record to that effect. The very first order passed by the Collector dated 19.11.1987 which has been made the foundation of argument by learned counsel for the petitioner also does not record any finding of fact that the allottee was in any manner related to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee.
10. From the bare perusal of the earlier order, I find that there is only reference of argument advanced by the petitioner's side but there is no such finding returned. Besides above, I also find that in the initial order the Collector had considered that the Gaon Sabha convened a meeting on the very next date when the public announcement had taken place, and so it was a valid ground to hold that meeting was illegally held.
11. In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no bar to hold meeting once the advance notice with agenda has been issued for the purpose of allotment of Gaon Sabha land if the public announcement is made a day prior to the scheduled meeting. Further the findings returned by the Collector that it was not land of petition, could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the land can be said to be in his possession. The land has continued to be recorded as Gaon Sabha land until the date of allotment and if the petitioner had any claim that the land stood settled as his Sahen or land appurtenant to his house under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the proper course for him under the statute to file suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, however, admittedly no such suit has been filed.
12. In such circumstances, therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the findings of Collector as well as the Commissioner cannot be sustained. I do not find any fault with the orders impugned herein this writ petition.
13. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
14. Interim order,if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 IrfanUddin