Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41951 of 2019 Petitioner :- Randheer Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar,Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The writ petition arises under Section 128 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 and seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by respondent no.3 and the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the respondent no.2. The matter had been heard yesterday and the following order was passed:-
"The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceeding for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1987 instituted in the year 2018 was barred by time.
The other contention is that allotment has been cancelled on the ground that land reserved as pasture land had been allotted which allotment was not permissible as this land was one governed by the provisions of Section 132 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act wherein rights would accrue in favour of any person.
After making aforesaid two submissions, counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment.
Put up as fresh tomorrow i.e. 19.12.2019 at 10:00 a.m. as the first case."
Today, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that right from 1356-F till 1380-F, the land, subject matter of allotment was recorded as banjar. For the first time as 1381-F, it came to be recorded as pasture land without any order having been passed by any competent authority for such change. Therefore, for all practicable purposes, the land allotted to the petitioner was banjar land and not land of public utility governed by the provisions of Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act. The order cancelling the lease is therefore, patently illegal.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Since, it is admitted that the land in question came to be recorded as pasture land in 1381-F which corresponds to 1974 and since the resolution of allotment in favour of petitioner was passed on 22.04.1987, there is absolutely no dispute that on the date of allotment, the land which was allotted to the petitioner was recorded as pasture land. The land Management Committee while passing a resolution is not competent to ignore the revenue entry. In any case, if there was mistake in the revenue record the same should have got corrected before alloting land recorded as pasture land, in favour of any one. The allotment, therefore, was patently illegal having been made of land which was public utility land governed by provision of Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act wherein no rights can approve to anyone.
It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that revenue entries were incorrect.
There is yet another interesting aspect of the matter. The name of the petitioner came to be recorded in the revenue records in the Khatauni of 1393 to 1398-F. The amaldaramad has been made on 31.08.1987 and it absolutely categorically states that the name of the petitioner has been incorporated pursuant to a PA-11 entry. Therefore, the entry in favour of petitioner is one which does not talk of any allotment in the name of petitioner, if the name was being recorded on the basis of an allotment in his favour, it necessarily required mention of the date on which allotment had been approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In any case, such amaldaramad could not have been made by PA- 11 entry which is only with regard to the undisputed cases of succession. No succession was involved.
For the foregoing reasons also the petitioner has no case as the alleged allotment in his favour, is under a serious cloud looking into amaldaramad, on record.
The only other submissions which survives for consideration is that proceeding for cancellation of allotment was barred by time. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that proceedings for cancellation were initiated sue moto. It is the settled legal position that where proceedings for cancellation are initiated sue moto, no limitation comes into play.
Moreover, the proceedings for cancellation were under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Sub-Section 1-A or Section 128 provides that proceedings for cancellation of an allotment, made prior to the enforcement of the Revenue Code 2006, w.e.f. 11.02.2016, is five years from the date of such enforcement. Therefore, the limitation for cancellation of allotments made under the provisions of the repealed U.P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, extend till 10.02.2021.
For this reason also the proceedings for cancellation of allotment cannot be said to be barred by time.
In view of the foregoing and since the submissions of counsel for the petitioner have been repelled above, the writ petition is found to be without merit. The orders impugned in this writ petition are found to be perfectly justified and in accordance with law and they call for absolutely no interference.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 AKT