Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra and Another v. Additional Commissioner and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021WRIC/4375/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of patta granted on pasture land. Relying on Section 132 of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act, the Court held that patta cannot be granted on pasture land, and subsequent revenue entries do not create title. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No cost.

Ramesh Chandra and Another Vs Additional Commissioner… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4375 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra And Another Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Achal Singh, Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 4.

¶6

By means of instant petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by first respondent/revisional authority/Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda arising from the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by third respondent, Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Mahoba, cancelling patta granted to the petitioners.

¶7

It is noted in the impugned order that on 19.02.1984, 80 persons, including the petitioners, were granted patta on a land recorded in Khata No. 862, pasture land admeasuring 62.46 acre, out of which 39.86 acre pasture land was allotted on patta. The land allotted to both the petitioners is Arazi No. 965 and 596 recorded as pasture land in Khata No. 862.

¶8

Admittedly, the land allotted to petitioners is recorded as pasture (Charagah). 80 persons came to be granted patta . From the total area of plot of Khata No. 862, the then Deputy Collector recorded that patta is being granted on 39.86 acre pasture land to 80 persons and remaining land after grant of patta will suffice for the purpose of pasture. In the order of the trial court, it is categorically recorded that on perusal of record granting patta to the petitioners and others, the then Deputy Collector has noted that patta is being granted on the pasture land. In view of Section 132 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'Act'), pasture land cannot be granted on patta or alienated in any manner. The trial court and revisional court on perusal of original record were of the opinion that patta granted of 39.86 acre land recorded as pasture land was against the provisions of the Act, accordingly, the patta granted to the petitioners was cancelled.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the facts noted in the impugned order. He, however, submits that after being recorded patta in 1984 the petitioners were cultivating the land and subsequently came to be recorded as Sankramniya Bhumidhar in the revenue record. In this backdrop, it is urged that petitioners have title over the said plot. It is further urged that impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the petitioners.

¶10

It is not being disputed before this Court or the courts below that patta of pasture land was in the teeth of the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, which reads thus:

¶11

"132. Land in which bhumidhari rights shall not accrue. - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of Section 19, bhumidhari rights shall not accrue in-

¶12

(a) pasture lands or lands covered by water and used for the purpose of growing singhara or other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation;

¶13

(b) such tracts of shifting or unstable cultivation as the State Government may specify by notification in the Gazette; and

¶14

(c) lands declared by the Slate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to be

¶15

intended or set apart for taungya plantation or grove lands of a Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority or land acquired or held for a public purpose and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this clause-

¶16

(i) lands set apart for military encamping grounds;

¶17

(ii) lands included within railway or canal boundaries;

¶18

(iii) lands situate within the limits of any cantonment;

¶19

(iv) lands included in sullage farms or trenching grounds belonging as such to a local authority;

¶20

(v) lands acquired by a town improvement trust in accordance with a scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U.P. Act V11 of 1919) or by a municipality for a purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Section 8 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act VII of 1916); and

¶21

(vi) lands set apart for public purposes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954)."

¶22

Further, the records shows that on five dates fixed for final hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners to argue the matter or press the revision.

¶23

In any case, it is not disputed nor pleaded in the writ petition that land in question could not have been allotted on patta being a land prohibited from alienation by way of patta under Section 132 of the Act. In view thereof, petitioners could not claim any right or title over on the land in question. Mere entry in the revenue record as bhumidhar would not confer title in the backdrop of the admitted position that patta of pasture land is prohibited under law.

¶24

It is further argued that the limitation is provided under Section 198(6) of Act that any proceedings undertaken for cancellation of patta suo moto by the authorities or on an application must be filed within five years.

¶25

In the instant case, it is not a case of cancellation of patta but restoring the land recorded as pasture to its original status, which was granted without lawful authority. The patta would not create any right on the petitioners to continue in possession of a land which otherwise could not have been granted on patta .

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders.

¶27

In view of discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶28

Dismissed. No cost.

¶29

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 P. Sri.

Ramesh Chandra and Another v. Additional Commissioner and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra and Another v. Additional Commissioner and 3 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

Anwar Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babbu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yunis Khan Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Mumtaz Vs State of up and others

Gyan Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Molai Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others