Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2004
  6. /
  7. January

Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Son Of Sri ... vs State Of U.P., Through Its ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 February, 2004

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bishram Tewari, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 6 and learned standing counsel.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15th November, 1996 passed by respondent No. 3 land the order dated 24th September 2003 passed by respondent No. 2.
3. A lease of housing site was allotted to the petitioner in Plot No. 250 area .02 decimal. An application under Section 122-C(6) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by Gaon Sabha praying for cancellation of the lease. Notice was issued to which petitioner filed his reply. The Collector vide his order dated 15th November, 1996 held that petitioner is not eligible person entitled for lease. Finding was recorded that petitioner is running a shop and is not agricultural labourer. Against the order dated 15th November, 1996, petitioner filed a revision in the revisional Court. The revision was dismissed on merits on 27th October, 1999. Against the order dated 27th October, 1999, the petitioner filed a review application which was allowed on 1st December, 1999. Copy of the order dated1th December, 1999 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. An application was filed to recall the order dated 1st December, 1999 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003. The Additional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003 set-aside the order dated 1st December, 1999 and restored the earlier order dated 27th October, 1999, The Additional Commissioner also recorded a finding that revision was dismissed on 27th October, 1999 and thereafter without hearing the Gaon Sabha, order dated 1st December, 1999 was passed. Challenging the above orders, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order contended that petitioner was eligible person for allotment and the view taken by the courts below is erroneous. The, counsel for the, petitioner placed reliance on Rule 115-M of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 and contended that under sub clause (c) any other person residing in the village is eligible for allotment. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that while passing the order the Collector has not taken into consideration the report of Tahsildar.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. The lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 15th November, 1996 under Section 122-C(6) off U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act holding that petitioner was not eligible person for allotment of housing site. The Collector has also taken into consideration the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 12th November, 1996 forwarded by the Tahsildar on 13th November, 1996 to the effect that petitioner after making wall and tin shed is running a shop. In the application filed under Section 122-C(6), the case of Gaon Sabha was that the hand is recorded as Khalihan which could not have been allotted. In the objection filed to the application, the petitioner's specific case was that total area of Plot No. 250 was 0.170 are in which by an order dated 30th September, 1991 passed by Sub Divisional Officer area of 0.06 are was deleted from Khalihan and recorded as abadi under clause 6(2). Reference of another order dated 16th September, 1990 of Sub Divisional Officer was also made by which 0.008 are land of Plot No. 250 was deleted from Khalihan and made open for allotment. The application was filed by the Gaon Sabha under Section 12C(6) C(6) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The Collector recorded a finding that petitioner is not eligible person. The said finding has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is eligible person within the meaning of Rule 115-M. According to Section 122-C(3) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, preference is required to observed in making allotment under sub-section (2), Section 122-C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act which is relevant for the purpose is extracted below:-
"[122-C. Allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Castes, agricultural labourers etc.-(1) The Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division of his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, may earnmark any of the following classes of land for the provision of Abadi sites for the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and agricultural labourers and village artisans.
(a) lands referred to in clause. (I) of subsection (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha under that section;
(b) lands corning into possession of the Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act;
(c) any other land which is deemed to be or becomes vacant under Section 13 Section 14, Section 163, Section 186 or Section 211;
(d) where the land earmarked for the extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for Harijans under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is considered by him to be insufficient, and land earmarked for other public purposes under that Act is available, then any part of the land so available.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 122-A, 195, 196, 197 and of this Act, or in Sections 4, 15, 16, 28-B and 34 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Land Management Committee may with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division allot for purposes of building of houses, to persons referred to in Sub-section (3)-
(a) any land earmarked under Sub-section (1);
(b) any land earmarked for the extension of abadi sites for Harijans under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
(c) any abadi site referred to in clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha;
(d) any land acquired for the said purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(3) the following, order of preference shall be observed in making allotments under Sub-section (2)-
(i) an agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(ii) any other agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village;
(iii) any other person residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Explanation I- The expression "agricultural labourer" shall have the same meaning as in Section 198.
[Explanation II.-The expression 'village artisan' means a person who does not hold any agricultural land and whose main source of livelihood is manufacture or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto and includes a carpenter, weaver, potter, blacksmith, silversmith, goldsmith, barber, washerman, cobbler or any other person who normally earns his livelihood by practising a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of any member of his family in any rural area;
Provided that no person shall be deemed to be a village artisan whose total income (including income of his or her spouse and minor children) exceeds two thousand four hundred rupees in a year).
Explanation III.-Preference shall be given to a person who either holds no house or has insufficient housing accommodation considering the requirement of his family.
........................................................................................................
................................................................................................................"
7. For considering the submission of the petitioner based on Rule 115-M, it is relevant to look into Rules 115-L and 115-M. Rules 115-L and 115-M of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules are extracted below:-
[115-L. A-Abadi sites for preferential categories.-(1) The Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division may, whenever land earmarked for he extension of abadi for Harijans under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and any other land of abadi site vested in Gaon Sabha in insufficient to meet the housing requirements of persons referred to in subsection (3) of Section 122-C, proceed to earmark land for abadi sites in accordance with Sub-section (1) of he said section.
(2) [* * *] (3) Before allotting housing sites to persons referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division shall in respect of each village, cause to be prepared the following lists and extracts-
(i) a list in Z.A. Farm 49-D showing separately particulars of persons of the three categories mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C;
(ii) a list in Z.A. Form 49-E of lands enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 122-C; and
(iii) an extract of village map showing the plots given in the above list.
(4) In making allotment of housing sites under this rule, the order of preference mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C shall be observed.
(5) No premium shall be charged for allotment of housing sites under this rule [115-M. B-Other abadi sites.-(1) Abadi sites other than those referred, to in Rule 115-L and vested in a Gaon Sabha may be allotted for construction of buildings for residential or charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industry in the following order of preference-
(a) a landless agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the village;
(b) a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami residing in the village and holding and less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres);
(c) any other person residing in the village (2) Every allottee under this rule shall be required to deposit an amount equal to 40 times of the rent of the land calculated at hereditary rates which shall be credited to the Gaon Fund.
Provided that no premiun shall be charged in respect of site allotted for charitable purpose]"
8. Rule 115-L and 115-M of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules are under heading of allotment of land for housing sites, however, Rule 115-L applies on abadi sites for preferential categories and Rule 115-M provides for other abadi sites. Lands earmarked under Section 122-C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for abadi sites are to be dealt with according to Rule 115-L as provided by Rule 155-L(1). In the present case, admittedly, Plot; No. 250 was Khalihan and according to own case of the petitioner the Sub Divisional Officer deleted area of .06 and 0.08 area from the Khalihan on which allotment has been made to the petitioner. Abadi site in the present case which has been allotted to the petitioner is abadi site fully covered by Rule 115-L. Sub Rule 4 of Rule 115-L clearly provides that in making allotment of housing sites under Rule 115-L, preference mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C shall be observed. Thus for allotment under Section 122-C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act the preference as mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C has to be applied and for, the abovesaid allotment the eligibility as mentioned in Rule 115-M is not applicable. Thus the submission of the petitioner that he is eligible within the meaning of Rule 115-M of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules cannot be accepted in the present case since the said rule applies for allotment for abadi sites other than those referred to in Rule 115-L and as observed above, the abadi site in the present case as claimed by the petitioner himself is covered by abadi site referred to in Rule 115-L. Thus the submission of the petitioner that he was eligible within the meaning of Rule 115-M cannot be accepted.
9. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that Collector has not considered the report of Tahsildar also is factually incorrect and cannot be accepted. A perusal of the order of Collector clearly shows that Collector has taken into consideration the report of Naib Tahsildar as forwarded by the Tahsildar which fact is clearly mentioned in the order of Collector.
10. The revisional Court while passing the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003 has observed that against the order passed by Collector revision was not maintainable, hence it is rejected. The Additional Commissioner further observed that revision was earlier dismissed on 27th October, 1999 which order was recalled without hearing the Gaon Sabha on 1st December, 1999 and without there being any valid ground for recall of the order. Copy of the order dated 27th October, 1999 has been brought on the record. No valid ground was made out for recall of the order dated 27th October, 1999 and the order dated 1st December, 1999 was hot in accordance with law. The revisional Court has rightly recalled the order dated Ist December, 1999 by which revision was allowed. The revisional Court has also rightly held that revision itself was not maintainable against the order dated 15th November, 1996 passed by Collector in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 122-C(6) of the Act. According to Section 122-C(8) the order passed under Section 122-C(6) is final and not subject to revision under Section 333 of the Act. I do not find any error in the order dated 24th September, 2003.
11. None of the submissions raised by the petitioner has any substance. No grounds have been made out warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Son Of Sri ... vs State Of U.P., Through Its ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 February, 2004
Judges
  • A Bhushan