Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14655 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sheela Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manu Singh for the Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is a transferee from an allottee of the Gaon Sabha, the allotment having been made in the year 1965. The allotment was of plot no. 416M.
It is the petitioner's case that subsequently and by operation of law the allottee a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights became a bhumidhar with transferable rights and thereafter executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
In the year 2010, on a complaint, proceedings for cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest were drawn. The lease has been cancelled on the ground that the land allotted was recorded as pasture land prior to its allotment having been so reserved during consolidation operations. Its nature was changed to Navin parti by the S.D.M. which power the S.D.M. did not possess.
Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the record, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Land which was recorded as pasture land and was therefore public utility land covered by the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be made subject matter of an allotment by the Gaon Sabha.
The land had been reserved for a public purpose during consolidation operations. This public purpose could not have been changed by the S.D.M. who directed it to be recorded as Navin parti. The order of the S.D.M. was without jurisdiction besides being in the teeth of the law contained in Section 29C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Under the circumstances, the allotment in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was in my considered opinion, void ab-initio. In such view of the matter, the plea raised by means of this writ petition that the proceedings for cancellation were barred by time cannot be accepted.
Since the allotment was void ab-initio as held herein above, there was no allotment in the eye of law. There is no limitation for cancellation of lease which is void ab-initio. In any case, the allotment being void ab-initio it is liable to be ignored, even in co-lateral proceedings.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is found to lack substance.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Mayank