Allowed

Mahabir and Others v. Board of Revenue and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2019WRIB/22847/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed orders cancelling land allotments because the Sub Divisional Officer failed to issue a show cause notice or provide a hearing, violating Section 198(5) of the U.P Zamindari & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 10.9.1991 and 7.12.1991 by Sub Divisional Officer and orders dated 19.4.1995 and 18.7.1995 by Board of Revenue are quashed and set aside.

Mahabir and Others Vs Board of Revenue and Another — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 22 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 22847 of 1995 Petitioner :- Mahabir And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ks Chauhan,Arvind Srivastava III, C.S.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- .../C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava III, counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶4

The petitioners allege that the Land Management Committee of the Village through its resolution dated 1.11.1987 proposed allotment of disputed plots in favour of the petitioners and the said resolution was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer vide his order dated 22.3.1988. However, a complaint was filed that the that the petitioners were not eligible for allotment under the U.P Zamindari & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950) and allotments were made without following the procedure prescribed in the Act, 1950 as well as the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, the allotment in favour of the petitioners were illegal and liable to be cancelled. On the aforesaid complaint, the Sub Divisional Officer submitted a report dated 10.9.1991 and ultimately vide his order dated 7.12.1991, recalled and cancelled the order dated 22.3.1988 cancelling the allotments in favour of the petitioners.

¶5

Against the order dated 7.12.1991 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. respondent no. 2, the petitioners filed Revision Nos.60 of 1993 and 44 of 1991-92 and the Additional Commission(Judicial) Agra Division, District Agra submitted a reference dated 30.11.1993 to the Board of Revenue i.e. respondent no.1 recommending that the revisions be allowed and the order dated 7.12.1991 passed by Sub Divisional Officer be recalled as the said order was passed without giving any notice to the petitioners and without giving them any opportunity of hearing. On the aforesaid reference of the Additional Commissioner Reference Nos.153-154 of 19931994/Mainpuri were registered before the Board of Revenue, U.P at Allahabad i.e. respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1 vide its judgement and order dated 19.4.1995 dismissed the said reference on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to a right of hearing as they had practised deception. Subsequently the petitioners filed a review application before the respondent no. 1 which was numbered as review

¶6

application no.74-75/94-95/Mainpuri. The said review application was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 18.7.1995.

¶7

It is admitted that the orders dated 10.9.1991 and 7.12.1991 was passed by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. Under Section 198(5) of the Act, 1950, no order of cancellation of an allotment or lease can be made unless a show cause is served on the concerned persons and the concerned persons are given an opportunity of hearing. In that view of the matter, the order dated 10.9.1991 and 7.12.1991 passed by respondent no.2 were in violation of Section 198(5) of the Act, 1950 and also violative of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid view is also supported by the judgements of this Court in Sheo Kanth Prasad Verma and others versus Gaon Sabha, Gosua and others 2004 AIHC 4383 and Arjun Singh versus State of U.P (Allahabad) 2017 (135) R.D 495.

¶8

The Board of Revenue had erred in dismissing the reference on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to any opportunity of hearing because they had practised deception. An opportunity of hearing and an enquiry was required to ascertain as to whether the allotments were made in accordance with the Act and the Rules and were according to law.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 10.9.1991 and 7.12.1991 passed by respondent no. 2 as well as the orders dated 19.4.1995 and 18.7.1995 passed by respondent no. 1 are liable to be quashed and are hereby set aside. However, the present order shall not prohibit the respondent no.2 or any other officer empowered under the law to pass fresh orders in accordance with law regarding allotments of disputed plots to the petitioners.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 30.1.2019/IB

¶12

Court No. - 22 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 22847 of 1995 Petitioner :- Mahabir And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ks Chauhan,Arvind Srivastava III,C.S.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- .../C.S.C.

¶13

C.M.Delay Condonation Application 1 of 2018 and C.M.Substitution Application No.2 of 2018

¶14

The delay in filing the substitution application has been explained in the affidavit.

¶15

The explanation is found sufficient.

¶16

The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed.

¶17

Substitution application is also allowed.

¶18

Office is also directed to carry out appropriate substitution in relation to petitioner nos.29 and 41 as detailed in prayer clause of the application.

¶19

Order Date :-30.1.2019

¶20

¶21

¶22

C.M.Delay Condonation Application No.80617 of 2004 and C.M.Substitution Application No.80618 of 2004

¶23

The delay in filing the substitution application has been explained in the affidavit.

¶24

The explanation is found sufficient.

¶25

The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed.