Kamal vs Gajraj

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2627­2628 OF 2012

KAMAL AND OTHERS ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

GAJRAJ AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2604­2605 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6486­6487 OF 2012

JUDGMENT

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment dated

12th August, 2010 followed with the Order dismissing the review

petition dated 12th October, 2011.

2. The brief facts of the case which manifest from the record are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.02.15 17:17:26 IST Reason:

that the present appellants are the applicants to whom land was

1 allotted after going through the procedure prescribed under the

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,

1950(hereinafter being referred to as “the Act”) on the

recommendations made by the Land Management Committee of

Village Phaleda in its meeting held on 20th July, 1996. The

allotment was finally confirmed by the Sub­Divisional Magistrate,

Khurja vide its acceptance dated 6th April, 1997 which came to be

affirmed on the dismissal of a revision petition filed at the instance

of one of the complainants, who although had no locus standi and

was not an allottee by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut

Division, Meerut in exercise of power under Section 333 of the Act

by order dated 31st March, 2008.

3. That order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division,

Meerut came to be set aside by the High Court on a writ petition

filed by a stranger to the proceedings, Gajraj, who was the original

complainant, questioning the allotment made to the appellants on

the premise that under Rule 176(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari

Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952(hereinafter being referred

to as “the Rules”), the decision was to be taken by the competent

2 authority on the recommendations made by the Land Management

Committee within one week of its receipt from the Chairman and

eight months had been consumed by the authority for granting final

approval which was in violation of Rule 176(4) of the Rules.

4. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the Additional

Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 31 st March 2008, and

the Additional Collector(Finance & Revenue) dated 30 th September,

2006, the High Court remitted the matter back to the authority to

examine the same afresh in accordance with law by Order dated

12th August, 2010 which is the subject matter in appeals before us.

5. The relevant extract of the allotments of piece of land made on

the recommendations of the Land Management Committee of

Village Phaleda in its meeting held on 20th July, 1996 is as under:­

…….Upon hearing the details of the above land, the Land Management Committee has also decided, to the effect that, those persons who will avail allotment in Village Phaleda Bangar, will be allotted land area, admeasuring 0.506 hectares, while those who avail allotments in Village Sultanpur Phaleda Bangar, will be accordingly allotted land area, admeasuring 0.253 hectares. Then the Lekhpal, has been asked, to the effect that, he ought to accordingly affect allotments of lands standing mentioned, in the contents of the concerned list of eligible candidates, which as a matter of fact, has been prepared by the Village Pradhan and members of the Land Management Committee. This list of all eligible persons, has been read­over, before this Land Management

3 Committee, whereupon some deliberation has taken place in the said behalf and finally it had been passed, through consensus voice, with this observation that, the said list has been duly prepared, in a true and correct manner, because members belonging to the Schedule Caste, remaining in possession of agricultural land area, admeasuring less than 31/8 acres, are also included, in the said list. Agricultural allotments, have been affected, in the following manner:­

S.No Name, Parentage Caste Khasra Area in Land Details . and address of No. Hectares revenue allottee in Rs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Mahendra, son Jatav 39/6 0.253 12.50 of Sohan Singh, resident of the village … … … … … … … 110 Shankar, son of Brahmin 324/1 0.506 12.50 Harchandi, 5 resident of the village

The contents of the aforesaid agricultural allotment have been read­over to the members of the Land Management Committee as well as the public at large and then a dispute has arisen in between the members of the Land Management Committee and the general public. Thereafter it has been decided, to the effect that, the resolution had been correctly moved and is true in nature. All members present have accordingly supported the above resolution and resultantly the same has been adopted and passed. Then Village Pradhan Smt. Vimlesh had directed the Lekhpal to accordingly prepare the requisite file pertaining to this resolution and the said file be analogously forwarded to the Sub­ Divisional Magistrate Khurja for the purposes of seeking and obtaining his concurrence and approval of this adopted and passed resolution. This matter ought to be tabled for confirmation in the next meeting of the Land Management Committee. Thus the above resolution has been happily adopted and passed.

4

6. The relevant part of the proposal for allotment in favour of 110

persons which was finally approved by the competent authority and

that reveals from the minutes of the meeting held on 6 th April 1997

is as follows:­

The Sub­Divisional Magistrate, Khurja.

Sir, I have perused the annexed file pertaining to allotments having been since affected in Village Phaleda. In the contents of the same, allotments had since been affected in favour of 110 persons out of whom 7 individuals belong to the Schedule Caste, 3 belong to the Backward Classes, while the remaining are belonging to the general category. From the photostat copy of allotment proceedings remaining annexed in the contents of the said file, it is amply clear, to the effect that, out of 166 persons belonging to the Schedule Caste in the village since previously, none of them being eligible remains to be accordingly allotted land in their favour. In connection with the legality of the eligibility­list, resolution, agenda and Munadi [open declaration by beating of drums] the area Revenue Inspector and the area Lekhpal had accordingly recorded their separate and distinct reports herein upon conducting due and proper enquiries in the said behalf, in this matter. They had also recorded the statements of various individuals. The proposed land to be given away in allotments stands recorded as that being Naveen Parti and barren in the contents of category 5(1) and 5(3) thereof, while it is stated that the same stands independent of any dispute whatsoever at the spot. Thus in this manner, on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal, recommendation is hereby submitted for approving the said allotment proposal.”

5

7. The allotment made by the competent authority came to be

challenged in a Suit No. 12 of 2004 under Section 198(4) of the Act

and after appraisal of record that was dismissed by an Order dated

30th September, 2006 by Additional Collector(Finance & Revenue),

Gautam Budh Nagar and further revision came to be preferred

under Section 333 of the Act was dismissed by Additional

Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by Order dated 31 st March,

2008.

8. That became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of

the complainant Gajraj who was completely a stranger having no

locus standi in reference to the allotments made by filing of a writ

petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

9. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, although has not

travelled to the facts of the case and has not bothered to examine as

to whether there is an error in the decision­making process adopted

by the authorities while making allotment of land to the landless

persons after it was examined at two stages by the Additional

Collector(Finance & Revenue) and Additional Commissioner, Meerut

6 Division, Meerut under its orders dated 30 th September 2006 and

31st March, 2008 and proceeded on the premise that the competent

authority has to take a call to grant approval to the Resolution

passed by the Committee within one week of its receipt from the

Chairman and it took eight months’ time to grant approval to the

recommendations made by the Land Management Committee which

was in violation of Rule 176(4) of the Rules and accordingly by

judgment dated 12th August, 2010 remitted the matter to the

authority to be decided afresh. Later review also came to be

dismissed by an Order dated 12th October, 2011.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no error was

pointed out in the decision­making process adopted by the State

authorities in making allotment of piece of land and so far as the

delay which has been caused by the competent authority in

granting approval is concerned, it is not within the domain of the

appellants, as such, they cannot be saddled with heavy costs for

which they were never at fault and it cannot be attributed to them.

11. At the same time, Rule 176(4) indeed indicates that the

decision has to be taken by the competent authority on the

7 recommendations of the Land Management Committee within a

week of its receipt but its non­compliance would not invalidate the

proceedings and it does not contain any consequential effect if the

authority fails to exercise its power within time­frame of one week

as stipulated under Rule 176(4). In the given circumstances, the

Order passed by the High Court is legally unsustainable in law and

passing the order to remit the matter back to the authority even

otherwise is not going to overcome the delay which was caused by

the competent authority in granting approval to the

recommendations made by the Land Management Committee.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the allotment made on

the recommendations of the Land Management Committee has been

examined at two stages, first, in a suit filed before the Additional

Collector under Section 198(4) of the Act and no error/fault was

pointed out in the decision­making process by the authority in

making allotment of the piece of land to the present appellants.

That came to be further examined in the revisional jurisdiction by

the Additional Commissioner in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 333 of the Act and after the matter has been examined at

8 different levels, no fault in the decision­making process has been

pointed out and merely because the competent authority has failed

to exercise its power within the period of one week as referred to

under Rule 176(4), that in itself will not invalidate the proceedings

and the Order passed by the High Court deserves to be interfered

with by this Court.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that it is true

that there was delay caused by the competent authority in granting

approval to the recommendations made by the Land Management

Committee but in the absence of there being any fault pointed out

or error being committed in the decision­making process in making

allotment of piece of land to the individual applicants who are

almost 110 in all, it is otherwise not in the interest of justice in

remitting the matter back to the authority and nothing is left for the

authority to now examine at this stage when allotment made on the

recommendations made by the Land Management Committee has

been looked into at two different stages by the respective competent

authorities. To invalidate the proceedings in the absence of any

statutory bar would not be in the interest of justice.

9

14. No one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 Gajraj who was

the original petitioner and from the record it reveals that he was

neither in the list of allottees nor was an applicant for consideration

of allotment. Regardless of the fate of the allotment of the present

appellants, at least respondent no. 1 Gajraj­the original petitioner is

not going to lose but can defeat the rights of persons to whom

allotment has been made on the recommendations made by the

Land Management Committee after due process as contemplated

under the scheme.

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

16. Before we proceed to examine the matter any further, it will be

apposite to take note of Rule 176 which is referred to as under:­

“176(1) After selecting the person or persons for admission to the land in accordance with Rule 175, the Committee shall prepare­

(a) a list of persons so selected in Z.A. Form 57­B;

(b) a certificate of admission to land in Z.A. Form 58; and

(c) a counterpart in Z.A. Form 58­A. (2) The documents referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub­rule (1) shall be duly signed by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee but the document referred to in clause (c) shall be signed by the person so selected for admission to the land.

10 (3) The document referred to in sub­rule (1) shall then be forwarded to the Assistant Collector­in­charge of the Sub­Division alongwith­

(a) a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee in which the decision to settle land was taken; and

(b) a certificate from the Lekhpal concerned to the effect that the particulars of the land mentioned in the list are correct and that the admission to the land is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. (4) The Assistant Collector in­charge of the Sub­Division shall, on receipt of the documents referred to in sub­rule (3); scrutinize the decision taken by the Committee and if he is satisfied that the decision of the Committee is in accordance with the Act and the rules made thereunder, he shall record his approval on the list in Z.A. Form 57­B and return the papers to the Land Management Committee within a week of its receipt from the Chairman with the direction that the possession may be delivered to the lessees and the report of the mutation be submitted to the Supervisor Kanungo by the lekhpal immediately after delivery of possession.

(5) If the Assistant Collector in­charge of the Sub­Division finds that the whole or part of the decision taken by the Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, he shall record his disapproval on the list in Z.A. Form 57­B and return the papers to the Chairman.”

17. If we look into the scheme of Rule 176, it provides the

procedure to be followed by the applicants who are entitled for

allotment of land. Under sub­rule (1), a list of persons so selected

have to fill their respective Form 57­B, Form 58 and Form 58­A.

Sub­rule(2) refers to the documents which are required to be

furnished by the individual applicant for the purpose of seeking

allotment. Under sub­rule(3), such of the documents referred to in

11 sub­rule(1) have to be scrutinized and the decision taken by the

Committee has to be examined by the Assistant Collector who has

to record its satisfaction whether the decision of the Committee is in

accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made

thereunder and after recording his approval, further action is to be

taken for allotment. If the decision taken by the Committee is not

in accordance with the Act, the Assistant Collector is empowered to

record its disapproval and return the papers to the Chairman.

18. The reference which has been made by the Assistant Collector

under sub­rule (4) to grant appropriate approval within a week of its

receipt appears to be introduced with an object to decide the matter

in a time bound manner so that those persons who are landless or

in whose favour the recommendations have been made after going

through the process under provisions of the Act or the Rules framed

thereunder, may not be deprived of the legitimate right which has

been conferred upon them and the duty has been casted upon the

authority to decide as expeditiously as possible, within one week

stipulated thereunder, but if there is a delay either for Ministerial or

administrative reasons, at least it cannot be attributed to the

12 allottee applicants. At the same time, if the authority has failed to

exercise its power within the stipulated time of one week as referred

to under Rule 176(4) of the Rules, at least it is inconsequential and

will not invalidate the proceedings.

19. It is to be noticed that the recommendations made by the Land

Management Committee after the approval being granted by the

Assistant Collector have been examined by different authorities in

exercise of power under Section 198(4) of the Act and later under its

revisional jurisdiction under Section 333 of the Act and even before

this Court, the respondents are unable to show that there is any

error or illegality being committed in the decision­making process

while the allotments were made in favour of the appellants allottees

on the recommendations made by the Land Management

Committee. In absence thereof, the authority competent, if has

failed to exercise its power vested under Rule 176(4) within the time

prescribed which is not within the ambit and control of the allottee

applicants, at least they cannot be saddled with heavy costs for the

inaction of the authorities in exercise of the power vested in it. In

the absence of any provision to invalidate such proceedings, it is

13 inconsequential and there was no reason/justification to set aside

those allotments made.

20. In our view, the High Court has not examined the matter in

this perspective. At the same time, if the action has not been taken

by the authority within one week as referred to under Rule 176(4),

there is no consequential effect of its non­compliance. In the given

circumstances, the High Court has committed a serious error in

interpreting Rule 176(4) in the right perspective, and at the same

time, setting aside the proceedings and remitting the matter back to

the authority without any reason or justification. More so, no error

has been pointed out in the decision­making process adopted by

the authorities under the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed

thereunder.

21. Consequently, the appeals deserve to succeed and are

accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 12 th

August, 2010 and the review order dated 12 th October, 2011 are

hereby set aside. No costs.

22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

14 …………………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI)

…………………………….J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 14, 2023

15