Ikram vs District Magistrate, Haridwar District – Haridwar & others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he is in possession of a land which is described in the revenue records as “Khala†which is a

Varg â€" 4 land meant for public purposes. On this land, “bhumidhari†rights cannot be created in terms of Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (from hereinafter referred to as “Actâ€​). Section 132 of the Act reads as under:-

“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-

(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;

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

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

(i) lands set apart for military encamping grounds,

(ii) lands included within railway or canal boundaries,

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

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

(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 VII 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 VIII of 1916), and

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

In this case, vide order dated 01.12.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, the application of the petitioner for regularization has

been rejected on the ground that petitioner is in possession of Varg â€" 4 land which is “Khala†and on such a land “Bhumidhari†rights

cannot be created in terms of Section 132 of the Act. Against this order dated 01.12.2014, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue.

Vide its order dated 17.06.2015, the Board of Revenue after referring to various decisions has held that agriculture is being done on such a land for

many years, then such a land does not come under Section 132 of the Act, however, factual determination still remains to be done as to whether

“bhumidhariâ€​ rights can be created on the said land or not.

Thereafter, the Board of Revenue referred the matter to the District Magistrate. It appears that the District Magistrate further directed the Sub

Divisional Magistrate to consider the matter.

The writ petition stands disposed with a direction to the District Magistrate to look into the matter personally after hearing all the relevant parties

and shall pass appropriate orders therein. It is made clear that in case it is found that the land is actually a “khala†land and meant for public

purposes, then under no condition “Bhumidhariâ€​ rights be created in terms of Section 132 of the Act.

It is directed that till such a decision is taken in the matter, status quo shall be maintained. Let the needful be done within a period of six weeks from

the date of production of a certified copy of this orders.