Allowed¶10

Thakur Das and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2020WRIC/56434/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thakur Das v. State of U.P., WRIT - C No. 56434 of 2015, decided 12.2.2020 by Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. — expunging of revenue entries under section 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 impermissible where patta allotment (plots 3310, 3352, village Akbarpur Aunchha, Mainpuri) subsists and has not been cancelled under section 198(4) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950; summary mutation proceedings cannot ignore allotment for want of vacant land; Lekhpal report; SDO order 10.3.2014; revision rejected 7.9.2015; orders quashed, liberty reserved to competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; orders dated 7.9.2015 and 10.3.2014 quashed; liberty reserved to the competent authority of the State to examine the legality of the allotment and to proceed in accordance with law. ¶10

Thakur Das and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authority exercising summary jurisdiction under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 could expunge the petitioners' revenue entries when the allotment of patta had not been cancelled by the competent authority under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶6

Court's answer

If the authorities found that no vacant land existed over which allotment could be made, that at best was a ground for the competent authority (the Collector) under section 198(4) of the Act of 1950 to proceed against the petitioners for cancellation of patta; no such orders having been passed by the Collector, the absence of vacant land could not justify expunging the entries.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Once the factum of allotment is not in dispute and the competent authority has not cancelled the allotment, it is impermissible for the authority concerned, while exercising summary jurisdiction under section 33/39 of the Act of 1901, to expunge the petitioners' names.

¶9

Key takeaways

In summary proceedings for mutation, the allotment cannot be ignored on the ground that vacant land was not available for allotment.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Reforms / Revenue entries — Patta allotted to landless labourers over plot nos.3310 and 3352 (0.162 hectare each), village Akbarpur Aunchha, Mainpuri, on 3.1.2009 remained uncancelled: no order was passed by the Collector under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 setting the allotment aside. Acting on a Lekhpal report that no vacant land existed, the Sub Divisional Officer expunged the petitioners' revenue entries under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (order dated 10.3.2014), and the revision was rejected (7.9.2015). Held (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.): where the factum of allotment is undisputed and the competent authority has not cancelled it, the authority exercising summary jurisdiction under section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 cannot expunge the allottees' names; non-availability of vacant land is at best a ground for the Collector to cancel the patta under section 198(4) of the 1950 Act, and in summary mutation proceedings the allotment cannot be ignored for want of vacant land. Writ petition allowed; both orders quashed; liberty reserved to the competent authority to examine the legality of the allotment and proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56434 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Thakur Das And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Raj Kamal Singh,Raj Kishore Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioners claim to be landless labourers who have been allotted patta over plot nos.3310 and 3352 area 0.162 hectare each in village Akbarpur Aunchha, Tehsil & District Mainpuri. The allotment has not been set aside by the competent authority in terms of section 1984(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It appears that a report has been submitted by Lekhpal stating that no vacant land was available over plot nos.3310 and 3352, and therefore, the allotment itself was impermissible. Relying upon this report the Sub Divisional Officer has passed an order under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 expunging the revenue entry existing in favour of petitioners. A revision filed against this order has also been rejected. Thus aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 are summary in nature and the revenue authority would have no jurisdiction to examine validity of the allotment made by the competent authority or to hold the allotment invalid for the grounds stated in the order itself. It is stated that the allotment itself has not been cancelled by the competent authority and in its absence the order passed under section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 is wholly without jurisdiction.

¶7

The petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel as also Sri R. K. Yadav, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.6. On behalf of the respondents it is urged that no vacant area exists upon plot nos.3310 and 3352 upon which any allotment could be made in favour of petitioners, and therefore, the allotment proceedings being void have rightly been ignored by the authority under section 33/39 of the Act of 1901.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for the parties have perused the materials brought on record.

¶9

It is not in issue that the land in question came to be allotted to the petitioners on 3.1.2009. The allotment proceedings have not been challenged. According to petitioners, they were also put in possession over plot no.3310 are 0.162 hectare and plot no.3352 also area 0.162 hectare, which fact however is disputed by the respondents. In case the authorities found that there existed no vacant land over which allotment could be made then at best it could have been a ground for the authority competent to proceed against the petitioners for cancellation of patta. The competent authority in that regard the Collector in terms of section 198(4) of the Act of 1950. No orders have been passed by the Collector in that regard. Once the factum of allotment is not in dispute and the competent authority has not cancelled the allotment, it would be impermissible for the authority concerned while exercising summary jurisdiction under section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 to expunge the name of petitioners. This would be particularly so as in summary proceedings for mutation the allotment cannot be ignored on the ground that vacant land was not available for allotment.

¶10

Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 7.9.2015 and 10.3.2014 are quashed. Liberty, however, stands reserved to the competent authority of the State to examine the legality of allotment and to proceed in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 12.2.2020 Ashok Kr.

Thakur Das and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Das and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shantanu Mittal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Shankar Parvati Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Km. Poonam and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others