Subhash And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others

Heard Shri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for cancellation of an allotment made in favour of the petitioner''s father, on 03.09.1987.

By means of this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 18.06.2016 passed by the Collector, whereby the allotment has been cancelled and the order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the consequential revision filed by the petitioners, has been dismissed.

The facts of the case are that a meeting of the Land Management Committee was allegedly held on 08.07.1987. It is alleged that in this meeting, the Pradhan left without signing the proceedings. Thereafter, the remaining members of the Land Management Committee resolved to allot plot nos. 222Ga area 0.48 and 222Gha area 0.23 to Rajendra son of Dal Singar, the father of the petitioners. The resolution was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, who is stated to have approved it on 03.09.1987.

Upon an application being filed on 31.10.2003 for cancellation of this allotment, the Collector, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 16.04.2004, decide to proceed suo moto, in the matter and directed issuance of notice to the allottee. Against this order expressing intent to proceed suo moto, a revision was filed, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 14.12.2009.

The petitioners thereafter filed their objection before the Collector. The Collector by the impugned order dated 18.06.2016, cancelled the allotment, which order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 08.11.2016.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner''s father after following the procedure prescribed. The meeting had been held after due munadi. One of the reasons given for cancelling the allotment is that the allottee was not a resident of the village.

In this context, the submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioners and their parents was ordered to be expunged from the family register of the village in question. However, this order was set aside on 10.08.2003 by the Deputy Collector, which order was not taken into consideration by the Courts below while cancelling the lease.

The second and much more vehement submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment having been made in the year 1987, the proceedings for its cancellation, initiated in the year 2003, were hopelessly barred by limitation. The proceedings could have been initiated only within a period of seven years from the date of allotment and not, thereafter. The proceedings are therefore entirely without jurisdiction and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has supported the impugned orders. The original record of the allotment as also the subsequent proceedings have been produced for perusal by this Court. Earlier it had been reported that this record was missing. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the same has been traced out and produced as noted above.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the original record produced by learned Standing Counsel pertaining to the allotment proceedings in favour of the petitioner.

A close scrutiny of the original record produced reveals that the resolution, which was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer for his approval was prepared after the Pradhan, who is supposed to preside over a meeting of the Land Management Committee had left without signing the proceedings.

The resolution forwarded, on the left margin records the names of 11 persons who are stated to have been present in the meeting and had passed the resolution. The last name in this regard, mentioned on the left margin of the page containing the resolution, is of Ram Singar, who was admittedly the Up Pradhan at the relevant point of time. On the right margin of the same document, the persons mentioned in the left margin have put in their signatures or their thumb impressions.

It would be relevant to observe that out of the 11 persons named in the left margin, the signature and thumb impression of only 9 persons are to be found in the right margin. Ram Singar, who was admittedly the Up Pradhan is one notable exception.

A meeting required to be presided over by the Pradhan, can, in his absence be presided over by the Up Pradhan. However, as noticed herein above, the Up Pradhan has also not put his signature on the resolution forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, for approval.

In this connection, it would be relevant to note that the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment were commenced on an application, which had been filed under the signature also of Ram Singar, the Up Pradhan and it was alleged therein that the resolution is forged and fabricated. Besides the resolution does not mention as to who presided over the meeting, wherein the resolution for an allotment in favour of the petitioner''s father was passed.

In my considered opinion, in the absence of the signature of the Up Pradhan as also the absence of any material to show as to who presided over the meeting, wherein the resolution was passed in favour of the petitioners, the same is not found to be a valid resolution of the Land Management Committee.

The other fact, which emerges from the perusal of the original record is that there is only a signature with a date below it, namely 09.07.1987. This is alleged to be the approval of the Sub Divisional Officer. Nothing beyond this is recorded. Not even a single word of approval. Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that this does not amount to a valid approval of the alleged resolution in favour of the petitioners'' predecessor-in-interest.

Under the circumstances and in view of what has been stated above, neither the resolution nor the approval of the Sub Divisional Officer can be held to be valid. The next aspect which calls for consideration is whether the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment were barred by time.

In support of his contention that the proceedings were hopelessly barred by time, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Jiya Ram and others vs. State of U.P. & others, 2012 (115) RD 372 and Subhag vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2011 (114) RD 219.

Both these judgments hold that no notice can be issued for cancellation of an allotment after the expiry of the period of limitation provided by Section 198(6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot benefit from the judgments cited for several reasons. First, this Court upon examination of the original record finds that there was no valid resolution nor any valid approval by the Sub Divisional Officer for grant of a lease in favour of the petitioner. The resolution that had been forwarded for approval was not by the Land Management Committee because admittedly, it had been passed after the Pradhan had left the meeting and it was not signed even by the Up Pradhan. There is nothing in the resolution indicating as to who presided over the meeting in the absence of the Pradhan.

The above discrepancy, in my considered opinion, is not an illegality but something, which renders the resolution void. Anything, which is void ab initio can always be ignored, even in co-lateral proceedings. The plea of the petitioner that the proceedings were barred by limitation, therefore, cannot be accepted.

Besides from the perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner belongs to the general category. Some of the persons who had filed the complaint belonged to the scheduled caste or other backward classes and were landless. There is nothing in the alleged resolution, indicating why the petitioner''s father was preferred over such persons, even though he admittedly possessed some land in the village. This fact also shows that the alleged resolution is a got up of document.

Last but not the least, the proceedings for cancellation were suo moto proceedings as is clear from the order dated 16.04.2004 passed by the Collector. This order to proceed suo moto in the matter, was affirmed by the Board of Revenue in revision and the orders have, since, attained finality.

In Santram Vs. R.D. Tiwari, 1998 RD (H) 69, it has been held that there is no limitation prescribed for exercise of suo moto powers and in case the Collector decides to exercise suo moto powers he must follow the procedure laid down. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.