Dismissed

satendra kumar singh chauhan v. State of U.P. and 4 others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2018WRIC/11998/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a writ petition by a disabled army man seeking agricultural land allotment. The Court disposed of the petition noting the petitioner holds 0.8558 hectares, which is under the statutory ceiling, but identified existing litigation over identified land as an impediment to immediate lease.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no lease granted due to pending litigation on identified land.

satendra kumar singh chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11998 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Earlier the present matter was taken up on 3.4.2018, and this Court has proceeded to pass following order:-

¶5

"Heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as Shri Manu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Gurushikaran, Tehsil Koil, District Agra, U.P. and he has no personal land in his name in his village. He is disabled army man and presently, he is posted at GREF Station, Pathankot, Punjab. The petitioner actively participated in various military operations including Meghdoot in the year 2010 and sustained injuries in the said operation. The petitioner applied for allotment of agricultural land in pursuance of the letters of the Army Headquarter/Ministry of Defence dated 12.3.1983 and 15.6.1984. The said request was forwarded by the petitioner's unit on 18.11.2015 but no response has been received so far.

¶7

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Para 367 (ii) of the Revenue Manual, which deals with following order of preference in granting leases of land situated in Gaon Sabha namely (a) Landless widow, sons, unmarried daughter or parents, residing in the Gaon Sabha, or a person who has lost his life in enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (b) A landless person residing in the Gaon Sabha who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (c) A landless agricultural labourer residing in Gaon Sabha and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe: Since all the residents of pargana Jaunsar Bawar (Tahsil Chakrata) of District Dehradun belong to Jaunsari Scheduled Tribe, the landless agricultural labourers belonging to comparatively weaker sections like Kolta, Bajgi and Dom castes shall be given preference over those of other castes and (d) Any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the Gaon Sabha.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the Gazette notification dated 25.4.1967 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, which deals with the land concessions to service personnel serving in the Armed Forces and consideration of their representation (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition). On the basis of aforesaid provision, it is sought to be contended that once the petitioner is disabled army man and presently, he is posted at GREF Station, Pathankot, Punjab, then the direction may be issued to the respondents for settling the land in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid provisions.

¶9

Confronted with this situation, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is accorded two weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

Put up this matter as fresh on 17.4.2018."

¶11

Today, when the matter is taken up, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions dated 14.4.2018 sent by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has total holding of 0.8558 hectares, and as such, he does not fall in the category of landless category. It has also been informed that so far as the land, which has been identified by the petitioner, is concerned, the litigation is going on and Smt. Chandrawati, claiming to be owner of the said land, has already filed Writ C No.56919 of 2011, which is still pending and as such, the petitioner cannot be accorded any lease in his favour. The instruction is taken on record.

¶12

In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of the land as per provisions contained under Section 126 (1) (a) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He has placed reliance on Section 126 (1) (g) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which provides that any bhumidhar or asami residing in the Gram Sabha has holding land less than 1.26 hectares. He submits that admittedly, the holding of the petitioner is less than the ceiling limit i.e. 1.26 hectares. In such situation, the petitioner is under the zone of consideration and he is also eligible person for the allotment of the land.

¶13

It is admitted situation that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is disabled army man and he has every right to get the lease as per ceiling limit. Once the authority has placed the instruction in question wherein it has been claimed that at present, the petitioner has holding of 0.8558 hectares, which is less than the ceiling limit of 1.26 hectares then in such situation the petitioner is definitely under the zone of consideration as per provisions contained under Section 126 (1) (g) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Whenever any proceeding takes place for allotment of the land in the village in question, then the claim of the petitioner will also be considered.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.4.2018 RKP

satendra kumar singh chauhan v. State of U.P. and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

satendra kumar singh chauhan v. State of U.P. and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhoop Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rama Kant Vs Commissioner Azamgarh Division and 3 Others

Raja Ram and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 20 Others

Mahanand Vs Sub Divisional Megistrate and 09 Others

c/m janhit karini samiti khatirpur Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Anuradha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others