Dismissed

Ram Charan v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/4640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash revisional and administrative orders denying the petitioner's claim for land settlement under the Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition Act. The court held that the petitioner had already received benefits for residential land and could not claim agricultural benefits again by misrepresenting residential structures.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned revisional order dated 26.04.2024 and the administrative order dated 17.05.2023 were affirmed.

Ram Charan Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration)… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39502

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4640 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Charan

¶5

Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Maurya,Rajneesh Maurya

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

¶9

With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is heard and decided finally at the admission stage.

¶10

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 26.04.2024 passed under Section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1950) and the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed under Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of gata no. 12 Minjumla, Area 11 Biswa 17 biswansi (which is less than 1.26 hectares) and having a house on the same since prior to May, 13, 2007, hence he is entitled for benefit of Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950, but the same has been denied by respondent no. 2 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 17.05.2023. Against which the petitioner had preferred a revision under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 which was also dismissed/rejected by respondent no. 1 without application of mind and afÏrmed the order passed by respondent no. 2.

¶12

On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 3 i.e. Gram Sabha have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by respondent no. 1 and 2. The petitioner had already got the benefit of Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 and Section 123(1) of the Act, 1950 on Gata no. 11 and now he cannot claim the benefit for the second time.

¶13

It is further submitted that the settlement of land in favour of any agricultural labourer and to those belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes who occupied the land before May, 13 2007 would become Bhumidhar, Sirdar

¶14

or Asami of the land but not exceeding 1.26 hectares. Such settlement is under Section 195 would be for agricultural purposes. In the impugned orders there is a reliance placed upon the reports where it has been mentioned that the petitioner had constructed a house i.e. a room, a toilet and Gaushala on the said land apart from several trees like Neem, Mahua, Shisham, Safeda, Kothibaas, Aam etc, as claimed by the petitioner and alleged in his application that he is doing agricultural activity on the same as well. After inspection, the report was submitted and it has not been found that the petitioner was doing any agricultural activity on the said land.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case and the provisions of the Act, 1950, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the petitioner has already got the benefit under Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 and Section 123 of the Act, 1950 on Gata no. 11. The benefit under Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 is for the agricultural purposes and the benefit under Section 123 of the Act, 1950 is for the purpose of house which the petitioner has been already given on Gata no. 11 and the said fact is neither disputed nor denied by the petitioner and the counsel who is representing the petitioner has rather admitted the said finding given in the impugned orders. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the land which been settled in favour of the petitioner under Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 is less than 1.26 hectares and by adding the land of Gata no. 12, it will not exceed the said limit of 1.26 hectares provided under Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for petitioner could have been accepted if the land of gata no. 12 is being used by the petitioner for agricultural purposes, but it is an undisputed fact that on the said land the petitioner has raised constructions of a house i.e. a room, a toilet and gaushala etc. along with several trees in such a small area on which the agricultural activity is not possible, rather the petitioner is trying to protect his second house in the garb of taking the aid of Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950.

¶17

The purpose of the above mentioned provisions is to protect the needy and the landless persons residing in the village. The aim and object of these provisions are very clear i.e. to protect the persons living below the poverty line and the persons belonging to the reserved category candidates and the landless residents of the village. So it is a beneficial legislation in the interest of villagers who are in need and not for the purposes to extend the area of land by taking shelter of these provisions.

¶18

Once it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the house of the petitioner which was in his possession and the land prior to May, 13, 2007 has already been settled in his

¶19

favour then by moving another application for taking benefit of Section 122 B (4-F) of the Act, 1950, showing the house as a land used by the petitioner for agricultural purposes is nothing but frustrating the very purpose of legislation.

¶20

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition is devoid of merit hence liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed .

¶22

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 DiVYa

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Charan v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Charan v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Samujh and Others. Vs Smt.Chandra Pali and Others.

Ram Surat and Others Vs Assistant Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Another

Munder Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ohters

Anoop Mishra Alias Anoop Kumar Vs Learned Additional Commissioner 2ND Lko. Division Lko. and Others

Budhram @ Budhau Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Smt. Janka Vs Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Distt. Unnao and Others