Prem Narain vs Board of Revenue

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard Shri Prabhat Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of proceedings u/s 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for cancellation of Patta granted to the petitioner. The case was registered as Case No. 54 State v. Prem Narayan. Learned A.D.M. Finance and Revenue, Sultanpur, allowed the application through order dated 21.8.1989 and cancelled the Patta granted to the petitioner. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 514 of 1989. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dismissed the revision on 22.8.1990. Hence this writ petition.

Matter pertains to Gaon Sabha Sarawan, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil-Kadipur, District-Sultanpur.

Patta of plot No. 1974-M admeasuring one Bigha was granted to the petitioner in the year 1976. Both the Courts below held that father of the petitioner possessed lot of agricultural land and petitioner did not deserve the allotment. Petitioner took up the stand which is usually taken in such types of cases to the effect that he was residing separately from his father. Courts below held that petitioner was brahman by caste hence he could not be agricultural labourer. This finding is utterly erroneous in law. For allotment caste alone is no barrier. Preferences in the matter of allotment are provided u/s 198 of the Act.

However impugned orders are to be maintained on the ground that as petitioner''s father had lot of agricultural land hence there was absolutely no question of his being agricultural labourer. u/s 198(1), in the absence of landless dependents of soldiers who have lost their life by enemy action or become disabled, top priority is to be given to landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or if no such person is available then to any other landless agricultural labourer. Thereafter comes the category of bhumidhar or assami holding less then 1.26 Hectares land.

Petitioner came up with the case that he was landless agricultural labourer. No evidence was adduced by him that he was agricultural labourer. A person whose father has got lot of agricultural land cannot be an agricultural labourer at least in normal course. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was not pointed out that how much land petitioner''s father held is not tenable as even in this writ petition it has not been denied that petitioner''s fattier held considerable agricultural land. Area of the land held by petitioner''s father has no where being mentioned in the writ petition.

The experience of the Court is that provision of allotment of Gaon Sabha land which is meant for people of the lowest stratum is being utterly misused and only influential people get allotted the land of Gaon Sabha.

Accordingly I do not find any error in the impugned orders.

Writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall forthwith be evicted and damages for illegal use and occupation of the land in dispute at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year from 1976 when allotment was made till actual eviction shall also be recovered from the petitioner like arrears of land revenue and deposited in Consolidated Gaon fund constituted u/s 125A of the Act. Office is directed to supply copy of this order free of cost to Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for sending the same to the Collector Sultanpur.