Dismissed¶13

Phulvasiya v. Commissioner Azamgarh Division and 10 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2020WRIC/10242/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Phulvasiya v. Commissioner Azamgarh Division; WRIT - C No. 10242 of 2020; decided 10.9.2020 by Salil Kumar Rai, J.; cancellation of plot allotment by revenue authorities; landless agricultural labour eligibility; husband Bhumidhar of 1.15 acres and Government Primary School Headmaster; Naib Tehsildar report on Plot Nos. 830 and 831; allotment of Plot No. 831Ka versus report on Plot No. 831Kha; independence of eligibility findings from plot-nature findings; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was ineligible for allotment because she was not a landless agricultural labour, her husband owning 1.15 acres of land and working as a Headmaster in a Government Primary School; this fact was not disputed by the petitioner before the revenue courts or this Court. ¶8

Phulvasiya Vs Commissioner Azamgarh Division and 10 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's allotment were liable to be quashed on the ground that they rested on an unreliable report of the Naib Tehsildar concerning Plot Nos. 830 and 831, allegedly relating to a different plot number than the one allotted. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Even if the Naib Tehsildar's report so far as it relates to the nature of Plot Nos. 831 and 830 is held to be unreliable and not acceptable, the orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be quashed, as the petitioner is ineligible for allotment.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

¶8

Key takeaways

The findings in the impugned orders regarding the eligibility of the petitioner are independent of the findings on the nature of Plot Nos. 830 and 831.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition against cancellation by revenue authorities of an allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The allotment was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not a landless agricultural labour, her husband being the owner of 1.15 acres of land and a Headmaster in a Government Primary School — a fact not disputed by the petitioner before the revenue courts or the High Court. The petitioner contended that the orders rested solely on a Naib Tehsildar's report concerning Plot Nos. 830 and 831, whereas she was allotted Plot No. 831Ka, and that no independent inspection was conducted. The Court held that the findings on the petitioner's eligibility in the impugned orders were independent of the findings on the nature of the plots; accordingly, even if the report as to the nature of the plots were held unreliable, the cancellation orders could not be quashed since the petitioner was ineligible for allotment. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10242 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Phulvasiya Respondent :- Commissioner Azamgarh Division And 10 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Chandel,Mayank Krishna S Chandel,Ram Niwas Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed against the orders passed by the revenue authorities cancelling the allotments made in favour of the petitioner.

¶8

The allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that she was not a landless agricultural labour as her husband was the owner of 1.15 acres of land and was also a Headmaster in a Government Primary School. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the petitioner either before the revenue courts or before this Court.

¶9

The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the orders have been passed on the basis of the report of the Naib Tehsildar which cannot be relied upon and no independent inspection was done by any other revenue authority. The report of the Naib Tehsildar is regarding the situation and nature of Plot Nos. 830 and 831. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that he was allotted Plot No. 831Ka and the report was regarding Plot No. 831Kha and, therefore, the report was not reliable. The report had also brought on record the facts relating to the eligibility of the petitioner, i.e., that husband of the petitioner was already a Bhumidhar of 1.15 acres of agricultural land and was a Headmaster in a Government Primary School.

¶10

The fact that the husband of the petitioner had 1.15 acres of land in his name and was also a Headmaster in a Government Primary School was not disputed by the petitioner before the revenue courts or before this Court.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid, even if the report so far as it relates to nature of Plot Nos. 831 and 830 is held to be unreliable and not acceptable, the orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be quashed as the petitioner is ineligible for allotment because she was not a landless agricultural labour. The findings in the

¶12

impugned orders regarding the eligibility of the petitioner are independent of the findings on the nature of Plot Nos. 830 and 831.

¶13

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 10.9.2020 Satyam

Phulvasiya v. Commissioner Azamgarh Division and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phulvasiya v. Commissioner Azamgarh Division and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dhanpati and 27 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Lal Ji Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Lakhpati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suresh Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 29 Others

Hari Har Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others