Allowed

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2021WRIC/14620/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a scheduled caste member, challenged orders cancelling land Patta alleging excess area. Court held petitioner entitled to protection under U.P. ZA&LR Act Section 122(B)(4F) as an agricultural labourer. Impugned orders from Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate were quashed, and directions issued to update revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 21.06.1997 and 21.11.2005 quashed; respondents directed to make necessary entries in revenue records.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14620 of 2006

¶3

Petitioner :- Shyam Lal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Kr. Yadav,V.K. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 21.06.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar) Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community. 5 Bigha land (1.024 Hectare) of Araji No. 216 is said to have been allotted on Patta on 30.08.1975. An order dated 21.06.1997 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur, which came to be endorsed in the revenue record, cancelling the Patta on the ground that the area allotted to the persons, on the plot in question, is more than the actual area of the plot. This Court had passed an interim order on 30.08.2006 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute.

¶8

It is sought to be urged that no opportunity was provided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate before passing the impugned order; the impugned order is not available on the official record, reference of which is ascertainable from the revenue entry.

¶9

Aggrieved petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The District Magistrate/Collector, Kanpur Nagar, on the direction of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2005, reiterated that the Patta allotted to the allottees exceed the area of plot no. 216. However, it is urged that some of the allottees, whose Patta came to be cancelled, were granted relief by the Revisional Court i.e. Commissioner of the Division under the provisions of Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The provision provides that notwithstanding anything in the forgoing sub-sections of Section 122B, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribes is in occupation of any land vested in a Gram Sabha under Section 117 having occupied before May, 13, 2007 and the land so occupied does not exceed 1.26 hectares, then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee

¶10

or the Collector against such labourer, and he shall be admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for the petitioner to institute a suit for declaration of his rights on the said land. Petitioner claims relief thereunder.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on being confronted with the above provision, submits that the petitioner being a scheduled caste is entitled to the protection of the provision.

¶12

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.

¶13

The impugned orders dated 21.06.1997, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Kanpur Nagar, and dated 21.11.2005, passed by the second respondent-District Magistrate/Collector Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make necessary entries in the revenue records accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Pkb/

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and 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

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

Saurabh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another