Ram Chhabile vs Collector and Others

A.N. Varma, J.—One Bhanu Pratap Pandey preferred an application u/s 122C(6) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred as an ''Act''), for cancellation of allotment in respect of plot which was said to have been allotted to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha for building of house, on the ground that such allotment was irregular and against the rules as the petitioner was not entitled for such allotment as he was not a resident of the concerned village and was a retired employee of Railways and his two sons and a daughter-in-law were gainfully employed. The Collector on the basis of material which was before him, vide order dated 28.2.2006, came to the conclusion that Bhanu Pratap was not a person aggrieved so as to move an application u/s 122C(6) of the Act, for cancellation of allotment in respect of plot in question. He, however, by the same order, of his own motion directed the notices to be issued to the petitioner. It is against the said order, issuing notices to the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved and has approached this Court through the present petition for setting aside the same.

I have heard Shri J. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri R. N. Gupta, who has put in appearance on behalf of the concerned Gaon Sabha, i.e., opposite party No. 3.

Shri Sinha vehemently argued that once the Collector having come to the conclusion on the basis of material before him that Bhanu Pratap, the applicant, having been found not to be an aggrieved person within the meaning as defined u/s 12C(6) of the Act, the proceedings ought to have been dropped. The Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notice of his own motion on the ground that the proceedings for allotment were irregular as the material which was taken into account for coming to the conclusion that said Bhanu Pratap was not a person aggrieved, on the very same material it could not have been said that the allotment was irregular. His argument further is that the petitioner being a Schedule Caste he was entitled for allotment of plot for building purposes as referred to u/s 122C(3) of the Act. As per his submissions, whether economic conditions of the petitioner as well as his family members were at all relevant for coming to the conclusion that allotment in his favour was irregular. According to him it was also absolutely immaterial for the purpose, as to whether or not his sons and daughter-in-law were gainfully employed.

Shri R. N. Gupta, in opposition argued that since only notices have been issued in exercise of powers conferred u/s 122C(6) therefore, the petition at this Juncture is premature. According to him nothing in the provision bars the Collector from issuing notices u/s 122C(6) for the purposes of inquiring into regularity of allotment. As per his argument there is no illegality or infirmity in the Impugned order, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Section 122C (6) of the Act reads as follows :

122C. Allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Castes, agricultural labourers, etc.�(1) The Assistant Collector In charge of the subdivision of his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, may earmark any of the following classes of land for the abadi sites for the members of the Scheduled Tribes and agricultural labourers and village artisans :

(a) lands referred to in Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha under that section ;

(b) lands coming into possession of the Land Management Committee u/s 194 or under any other provisions of this Act;

(c) any other land which is deemed to be or becomes vacant u/s 13, Section 14, Section 163, Section 186 or Section 211 ;

(d) where the land earmarked for the extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for Harijans under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is considered by him to be insufficient, and land earmarked for other public purposes under that Act is available, then any part of the land so available.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 122A, 195, 196, 197 and 198 of this Act, or in Sections 4, 15, 16, 28B and 34 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Land Management Committee may with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division allot for purposes of building of houses, to persons referred to in Sub-section (3) :

(a) any land earmarked under Sub-section (1) :

(b) any land earmarked for the extension of abadi sites for Harijans under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ;

(c) any abadi site referred to in Clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha ;

(d) any land acquired for the said purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3) The following order of preference shall be observed in making allotments under Sub-section (2) :

(i) an agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe ;

(ii) any other agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village ;

(iii) any other person residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

(6) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land '' under this Section inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment, and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other person claiming through him in the land allotted shall cease...

As would appear the aforesaid provision contemplates that the Collector of his own motion shall on the application of any person so aggrieved by an allotment of land, enquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and, if satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the same.

The Collector vide Its impugned order has found that the person who had preferred an application for cancellation of patta. was not a person aggrieved, within the meaning "person aggrieved." as occurring under the aforesaid provision of this Act. There is however, nothing in the aforesaid section which prevents the Collector from taking any action on his own motion to enquire into such allotment. Moreover, on the basis of prima facie satisfaction only notices have been issued to the petitioner by the Collector of his own motion. The regularity or irregularity of the grant of patta cannot be gone into by this Court even on the basis of any material which is said to be on record. It is for the Collector to consider the same for the provision empowers him. Question of validity of grant of patta has still to be decided by the Collector. Whether or not the allotment is regular or irregular can still be demonstrated by the petitioner before opposite party No. 1. This is not the stage for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This Court as such is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition, in the circumstances, being devoid of merits is hereby, dismissed.