The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the cancellation of a bhumidhari lease. The Court upheld the Additional Collector's finding that the petitioner was not landless due to existing tenure in Plot No. 58, finding his determinations sustainable and not perverse.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 74
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19259 of 2020 Petitioner :- Jairam
Respondent :- Additional Moradabad Division And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Vir Jaiswal,Harsh Vikram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani appearing for the Land Management Committee and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Moradabad cancelling the bhumidhari lease of the petitioner executed by the Gaon Sabha as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 30.4.2011 confirming the cancellation order.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner who is a Scheduled Caste was considered to be eligible for allotment of land by the Land Management Committee and to that effect a resolution was passed on 28.7.2004. The resolution was further approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Form 57-B was prepared, and thus the allotment in favour of the petitioner stood confirmed. It appears that thereafter some complaint was made regarding allotment made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner though belonged to Scheduled Caste, but was not a landless person as he was already recorded as a bhumidhar in respect of Plot No. 58, area 2.699 hectares, half of which he had later on transferred by sale deed in favour of his son.
The Additional Collector found the complaint to be justified and having gone through the relevant revenue extracts has finally recorded a finding that the petitioner could not be considered as a landless farmer, and therefore, was not eligible to be considered for allotment of gaon sabha land. The said order though has been assailed by the petitioner before the Commissioner in a revision petition, but he has not been able to demonstrate even in the revision as to how the findings returned by the Additional Collector can be termed as perverse.
On a specific query being made to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner was a recorded tenure
holder in respect of Plot No. 58 at the time of lease allotment proceedings and as to whether half of the area of plot no. 58 over which petitioner was recorded, has been transferred by executing a sale deed in favour of his son, he could not dispute these facts. Even in the pleadings in the writ petition are silent in respect of the bhumidhari rights that the petitioner enjoys in respect of plot no. 58 as referred to herein above.
In such above view of the matter, therefore the findings returned by the Additional Collector (Administration), Moradabad cannot be said to be perverse and there is no apparent error on the face of the record so as to hold that the orders passed by the Additional Collector and Court in revision respectively are not sustainable.
In view of the above, no writ of certiorari can be issued and the writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Arif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Additional Collector regarding the petitioner not being a landless farmer were perverse or suffering from apparent error on the face of the record.
Whether the bhumidhari lease granted to the petitioner was legally sustainable in light of his existing recorded tenure in Plot No. 58.
Jairam
Additional Moradabad Division
7 Others
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
