High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Harbhan Singh v. Board Of Revenue & Others - WRIT - B No. 39770 of 1997  RD-AH 2610 (19 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39770 of 1997.
Board of Revenue and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 30th March, 1995, 30th March, 1996 and 30th September, 1997, passed by respondents 3, 2 and 1, respectively to the writ petition.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged out from the pleading of the writ petition as well as from the orders impugned in the present writ petition are that a lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot no.619 area 50 decimal, plot no. 623 area 1 acre and plot no. 630 area 1 acre by the Gaon Sabha. The contesting respondent Sarnam Singh filed an application under Section 198 )(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (In short 'the Act') seeking cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that actually no proceedings for the grant of patta were drawn. A similar application was filed by one Kamta Singh with the prayer for cancellation of the aforesaid lease with the allegation that patta in respect of plot no. 619 area 40 decimal was granted in his favour on 20th May, 1986 and in respect of the same property the Pradhan of the village concerned has wrongly granted another patta in favour of the petitioner. Both the aforesaid proceedings were consolidated by the Additional Collector and after giving opportunity to the parties vide order dated 30th March, 1995 directed that the entries in favour of the petitioner and Kamta Singh are forged and incorrect and in fact no patta has been granted in their favour, therefore the same be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 30t March, 1995, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner/revisional authority, who vide order dated 30th March, 1996 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner holding that the order passed by the Additional Collector does not require any interference by the revisional authority. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner dated 30th March, 1996 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30th September, 1997 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the findings arrived at by the sub-ordinate authorities regarding entries in the name of
the petitioner being forged and contrary to the law over the plots in dispute.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued before this Court that the findings arrived at by the Additional Collector and Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue regarding entries being forged are perverse and suffer from the manifest error of law because the patta has been granted to the petitioner by the Land Management Committee after complying with the requisite provisions of 'the Act'. Learned counsel further argued that the Additional Collector could have exercised the power of directing the entries to be corrected only within the period as contemplated under sub-section 6 of Section 198 of 'the Act; and the same cannot be exercised by the Additional Collector beyond the period prescribed under 'the Act'. Section 198 (4) of 'the Act, which is reproduced below, clearly demonstrates that the Collector can also exercise power suo moto and for which no limitation is specified.
"198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Section 195 and 197.----
(4) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any."
In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the orders impugned passed by authorities below and the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Collector in the present case was beyond prescribed limitation is not accepted.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.