Ram Babu vs State of U.P.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Sandeep Chaudhary holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. While assailing the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted benefit under section 122B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) over Plot No. 253, measuring about 1.188 hectare situated in Village Budhpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dibai, District Bulandshahr vide order dated 26.4.2011 on the basis of the report of revenue authorities affirming the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute since prior to the cut of date, 13th May, 2007.

Against which a complaint was filed by a private individual, disputing the petitioner''s possession. It was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.3.2013, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It is submitted that all of a sudden the petitioner''s name from the revenue record has been expunged taking note of the fact that prior to extension of benefit under section 122B(4-F) of the Act on two occasions lease were granted to the petitioner, therefore benefit under sub-section (4-F) of section 122B of the Act could not be extended to the petitioner as he was not landless person.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that in view of the fact earlier two leases were granted to the petitioner and the petitioner was not a landless person, therefore, his name has rightly been expunged from the revenue record.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the order of expansion of the petitioner''s name from the revenue record is an ex parte order as neither there is any mention about the notice nor any version of the petitioner while expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue record.

Learned standing Counsel as well as learned Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submits that they do not propose to file counter-affidavit and the writ petition may be decided on its own merit on the existing facts. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the record learned Standing Counsel as well the learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha could not show that any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before expunging his name from the revenue record. Since the petitioner has been extended benefit of section 122-B(4-F) of the Act on the basis of the report of the revenue authorities and the petitioner has acquired right of a Bhumidhar with non transferable right, his name could not be expunged from the revenue record by an ex parte order. The impugned order suffers from breach of principle of natural justice therefore it cannot sustained in the eye of law in view of the various pronouncement made by the Apex Court as well as this Court in The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, , Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, , D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., , Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks 1998 (8) SCC, Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, , Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association Vs. Central Valuation Board and Others, , and Suresh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, .

In view of the foregoing discussions and undisputed facts regarding non providing opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 25.5.2012 and 30.5.2012 passed by the respondents are hereby quashed.

The Sub-Divisional officer is directed to issue a show cause notice mentioning reasons as to why order dated 26.4.2011 extending the benefit under section 122-B(4-F) of the Act to the petitioner be not withdrawn and cancelled within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of this Court. The petitioner thereafter will have six weeks time to file his reply from the date of receipt of the notice. After completion of pleadings the matter be heard and decided after hearing both sides by the Sub-Divisional Officer expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned Counsel for the parties by a reasoned order. In case any adjournment is sought by any of the party that may only be granted by imposing cost to be paid by the next date fixed. It is also provided that till the disposal of the proceedings neither any third party right shall be created nor nature of the land shall be changed.