Writ petition sought cancellation of a residential patta allotted to respondent no. 4 over Gata No. 1205, said to be recorded as road. The Court held the revision against the ADM's Section 122-C(6) order was barred by Section 122-C(7), but examined merits via the writ itself and dismissed the petition, upholding the allotment.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176763 Reserved on 29.05.2024 Delivered on:12.11.2024
Court No. - 69
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3561 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raj Bali Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Bihari,Shiv Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Mishra,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.,Shambhavi Nandan
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1 of 9
petitioner dated 17.10.2016 under Section 122-C (6) of the Act seeking cancellation of the Residential Site allotted to the respondent no. 4 by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 registered as Case No. 688 of 2017.
2 of 9
application of the petitioner dated 17.10.2016 under Section 122-C (6) recording the following findings:
“ प्रार्थी� द्वारा प्रार्थी�ना पत्र प्रस्तुत कि�या गया है कि� कि�पक्षी रमाशं�र मौजा भतसार आराजी नम्बर 1761 � 1762 में घुस�र �ब्जा �रना � ईट �ी दी�ाल खडी �रना चाहता है, जिजस�े क्रम में मौ�े �ी आख्या न्यायालय द्वारा माँगी गयी, जो किदनां� 20.07.2017 �ो प्राप्त हो�र संलग्न पत्रा�ली है। उक्त आख्या में यह उल्लेख कि�या गया है कि� मौजा �परफोर�ा परगना �स�ार राजा , तहसील राजातालाब, जिजला �ाराणसी में स्थिस्र्थीत आ०नं० 1205 र�बा 0.010 हे० �े बाबत आख्या मौ�े �ी माँगी गयी है, जाँचोपरान्त आ०नं० 1205 र�बा 0.099 �ा है, जिजसमें 0.010 हे० �ा आ�ासीय पट्टा रमाशं�र �े ह� में कि�या गया है, जो भतसार �े बाड�र पर स्थिस्र्थीत है, मौ�े पर र�बा खाली है। कि�पक्षी राजबली आ०नं० 1761, 1762 जो ग्राम भतसार में है। इस आ०न० �े आड़ में कि�पक्षी राजबली ग्राम �परफोर�ा �ी आ०नं० 1205 र�बा 0.089 हे० हड़पना चाहता है, जबकि� मौ�े पर 3110 नं० 1205 खाली है। कि�पक्षी अपने आ०नं० 1761, 1762 �ा धारा 24 �े तहत पैमाइश �रा चु�ा है। आ०नं० 1205 बंजर �े खाते �ी भूकिम है। प्रार्थी� ग्राम भतसार �ा किन�ासी है। आ�ंकिटत भूकिम मौजा �परफोर�ा �ी है जो �परफोर�ा � भतसार �े बाड�र पर स्थिस्र्थीत है। प्रार्थी� �ी क्षुब्धता मुख्यतः यह है कि� आ�ंटी चाहता है। आराजी �े सहारे प्रार्थी� �े आराजी संख्या 1761 � 1762 �ो हड़पना चाहता है। प्रार्थी� द्वारा उक्त आराजी �ा धारा 24 �े तहत पैमाइश �राया जा चु�ा है। ऐसी स्थिस्र्थीतित में चूंकि� कि��ाकिदत आराजी दो ग्राम �े बाड�र पर स्थिस्र्थीत है इसलिलए उतिचत होगा कि� दोनों ग्रामों �े लेखपाल � राजस्� किनरीक्ष� �ी टीम गकिWत �र प्रार्थी� �ी आराजी � आ�ंटी �ी आराजी �ा तिचन्हां�न �रा लिलया जाय। प्रार्थी� द्वारा ऐसा �ोई Wोस अभिभलेखीय साक्ष्य दालिखल नहीं कि�या गया है जिजससे आ�ंटी �ो अपात्र माना जा स�े।.”
3 of 9
rejecting the Revision of the petitioner in as much as it failed to take note of the fact that Gata No. 1205 was recorded as road in the revenue records and a Pacca road is still in existence over the said Gata. No allotment of residential site could have been made in favour of the respondent no. 4. The allotment being void was not liable to be sustained and as such the application under Section 122-C (6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was liable to be allowed but the Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/ respondent no. 3 proceeded to do so otherwise and the Revisional Authority ignoring the said aspect committing the same mistake rejected the Revision.
4 of 9
0.010 Hectare is allotment site while Khata No. 00845 Plot No. 1205 M area 0.079 Hectare is recorded as Banjar.
5 of 9
“61. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us holding that an order passed by Collector under Section 122-C(6) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951
6 of 9
in respect of kind of lease and category of persons, to which Section 122-C is applicable, is final and not revisable under Sections 333 or 333-A in view of the declaration made under sub-section (7) of Section 122-C. The same would also apply in respect of an order passed by Assistant Collector under sub-section (4), if it is not interfered by Collector under sub-section (6), and such order would attain finality by virtue of declaration made under Section 122-C(7) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.”
7 of 9
122-C (6) is suo moto, then the words "May" has been used. Meaning thereby that there is an element of discretion involved, but where the exercise of power is on an application made (as in the present case), the world "shall" has been used meaning thereby that it shall be obligatory on the Collector to make an inquiry as regards the correctness of the order of allotment made by the Land Management Committee under Sub Section (2) or Assistant Collector In-charge under Sub Section (4) and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The said exercise having not been done, the order dated 30.12.2021 cannot be sustained.
8 of 9
has been allotted to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner is resident of village Bhatsar and has his holdings in the said village. Gata No. 1205 is situate in Mauja Kaparphorwa at the border of Bhatsar and Kaparphorwa.
Order date: 12.11.2024
Deepak/
9 of 9
Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Was a revision maintainable against an order passed under Section 122-C(6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act given the bar under Section 122-C(7)?
Should the residential patta over Gata No. 1205 allotted to respondent no. 4 be cancelled as the gata was recorded as road?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Dhani and others v. Addl. Collector (F&R)Relied on¶13
2019 Law Suit (All) 250; 2019 (4) ADJ 668
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Bali
State Of Up
Rama Shankar
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
