Lachman Singh vs Board of Revenue,U.P.Alld.and Others

B. Dikshit, J.—The question which arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether a case under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short ''Act'') is to be remanded by Board of Revenue is exercise of its revisional jurisdiction where the allotment has been cancelled by a Collector without impleadment or issue of notice to Land Management Committee as contemplated under Rule 178A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (in short ''Rules'').

The facts essential for the purpose of this petition are that each of the contesting respondent was allotted certain plot under Section 198 of the Act. The Additional Collector cancelled these allotments in proceedings under Section 198 of the Act by order dated 17th May, 1979. The contesting respondents, Punjab Singh and others, preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner who made a reference to the Board of Revenue, wherein oh of the grounds on which Additional Commissioner recommended setting aside of order passed by Additional Collector was that the Land Management Committee concerned was not impleaded as party proceedings before Additional Collector. The Board of Revenue accepted reference on said ground and after setting aside order of Additional Collector .remanded the case for decision afresh in tr^e light of observation made. The main reason for setting aside of order of Additional Collector appears to be that Land Management Committee was not given notice as contemplated under Rule 178A (2) of the Rules.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued .that the Board of Revenue committed an error, apparent on the face of record in setting aside the order of Additional Collector on the ground that the Land Management Committee was not given notice contemplated under Rule 178A (2) before cancelling allotments. He argued that the Land Management Committee did not raise any such grievance before Additional Commissioner or Board of Revenue yet Board of Revenue set aside the order of Additional Collector and ordered trial afresh on the ground of nonimpleadment of Land Management Committee as party. The argument is that the case could not have been remanded at the instance of allottees, who were already parties before Additional Collector, on said ground without there being any objection by Land Management Committee that order was liable to be set aside, on such a ground. The argument was opposed by learned counsel for contesting respondents. He submitted that the Land Management � Committee is a necessary party under Rule 178A (2) and in absence of Land Management Committee being impleaded as party to proceedings and without hearing it, the Additional Collector could not have concealed the allotment.

Rule 178A (2) reads as follows:

�(2) Where the Collector makes an enquiry under subsection (4) of

Section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottee of land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed.�

From perusal of rule it is apparent that no. allotment can be cancelled without affording� opportunity of hearing to Land Management Committee, This is a statutory requirement. Admittedly, the Land Management Committee was neither impleaded as party nor it was afforded any opportunity of hearing. The grievance in this respect can be raised by the Land Management Committee alone. An order passed in a suit or proceeding is not bad in law for nonjoinder of a party. Once an order was passed by the Additional Collector without any objection on the part of allottee, that notice to Land Management Committee has not been given, then it is not open for the allottee to raise any such objection at revisional tstage for the first time�. The grievance could be to Land Management Committee alone, which could have raised objection. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any such objection was taken by or on behalf of the Land Management Committee before the Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. In the absence of any such objection on the part of Land Management Committee, the Board of Revenue exceeded its power in settingaside the order cancelling allotment while excising its revisional jurisdiction and Sending the case back to Additional Collector for decision afresh and, therefore, the order of Board of Revenue is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

5, For aforesaid reasons the order qf Board of Revenue dated 861981 (Annexure5 to writ petition) is quashed and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revsion afresh on merits. In case any objection is raised by the Land Management Committee before the Board of Revenue then it will be open for the Board of Revenue to consider the objection in the light of aforesaid observations.

The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.