Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.111637 of 2011 Cause shown in the affidavit for the delay in preferment of the substitution application, is found to be sufficient. Consequently, the delay in filing the same is condoned. The application stands allowed.
Order on Civil Misc. Substitution application No.111635 of 2011 Substitution application is allowed.
Let appropriate amendments be carried out forthwith.
Order on Writ Petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Although, the fifth respondent is duly represented, none has appeared on his behalf even the matter is taken in the revised call.
This petition challenges the orders dated 10 December 1999, 20 December 2005 and 27 November 2007. When the writ petition was initially entertained, a learned Judge of this Court had granted an order for maintainance of status quo. The relevant facts which deserve notice for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are as under.
The petitioner claims to be a landless agricultural labourer asserting being in long possession over the land in dispute. He claimed the benefits of the provisions made in Section 122-B(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ["the 1950 Act"]. That provision confers the status of non transferable bhumidhari rights on landless agricultural labourers belonging to the SC/ST category who may be found to be in possession on the relevant date. It appears that seeking extension of that benefit and for a declaration of his rights, he instituted proceedings under Section 229-B of the 1950 Act in 1992. The suit so instituted was decreed on 31 October 1996 with the concerned Court holding and recording a categorical finding that the petitioner has been able to establish that he was in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years. It also proceeded to cancel the Patta granted to one Anil Kumar [the fifth respondent here] over the same plot. However, it appears that in the meanwhile and sometime in 1994, the respondents had granted a patta to the fifth respondent.
Despite the declaration having been entered by the competent Court with respect to that patta being annulled, the petitioner was forced to institute separate proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the 1950 Act. These proceedings were dismissed with the respondents holding that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person. The view taken is thoroughly misconceived and cannot possibly be countenanced.
Once a declaration had been entered by the competent Court recognizing the rights of the petitioner over the land in question and the patta granted in favour of the fifth respondent annuled, there was no occasion for separate proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the 1950 Act being instituted. In any case and once the decree had come to be entered, the patta which was granted to the fifth respondent could not have survived. It becomes pertinent to note that that the decree of 31 October 1996 had admittedly attained finality inter partes. In view thereof, the orders impugned in this petition are clearly rendered unsustainable.
One last aspect which may be noticed is with respect to the contention addressed in the backdrop of the operation of the decree insofar as the validity of the Patta granted on 16 November 1994 is concerned. It is strenously urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the Patta had been granted in 1994 whereas the decree had come to be entered only in 1996.
However, that submission does not impress the Court for the simple reason that the judgment and decree clearly records the factum of the possession of the petitioner existing on the plot in question from more than 12 years prior thereto. It is thus evident that the petitioner was recognized to be in possession even prior to the grant of the patta. In any case, the decree rendered by the competent Court was clearly declaratory and therefore would eclipse the Patta stated to have been granted on 16 November 1994.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10 December 1999, 20 December 2005 and 27 November 2007 are quashed. The State shall take consequential actions accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Vivek Kr.