# Babulal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 124
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 19260 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babulal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47986
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sri
Bachcha
Lal
Yadav,
Sri
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri Jadu Nandan
Yadav

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 66 - UP Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reform Act, 1950 - Section 198(4) -
Residential lease - Granting of lease in
favour of OBC candidates by playing fraud
- Complaint after 46 years - Permissibility
- Suo moto power, how far can be
exercised - For the purposes of exercise of
suo motu power upon a complaint being
made in that behalf, the old and settled
issues cannot be permitted to be reopened
- If today the controversy regarding
allotment, which is already settled, is
reopened after lapse of more than 4
decades, it will cause more damage to
public interest than to serve it. (Para 9
and 15)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maharajganj enlisted at serial no.22 in the
list annexed with the notification and
restrain the respondents from holding fresh
elections of Nagar Palika Parishad, Siswan
Bazar, Maharajganj until it completes its
full duration of five years from the date of
its first meeting unless dissolved earlier in
accordance with law.

61. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 124
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 19260 of 2022

Babulal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Vimalendra
Kumar
Upadhyay,
Sri
Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Bachcha
Lal
Yadav,
Sri
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri Jadu Nandan
Yadav

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 66 - UP Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reform Act, 1950 - Section 198(4) -
Residential lease - Granting of lease in
favour of OBC candidates by playing fraud
- Complaint after 46 years - Permissibility
- Suo moto power, how far can be
exercised - For the purposes of exercise of
suo motu power upon a complaint being
made in that behalf, the old and settled
issues cannot be permitted to be reopened
- If today the controversy regarding
allotment, which is already settled, is
reopened after lapse of more than 4
decades, it will cause more damage to
public interest than to serve it. (Para 9
and 15)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Pyare Lal & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah & ors.;
200598 RD 106
2.
Ramker
Chauhan
Vs
Commissioner,
Azamgarh & ors.; 2012 (8) ADJ 713
3. Jitendra Kumar @ Gopal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2018 0 Supreme (All) 822
4. Yadram & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2019 0
Supreme (All) 2712
5. Writ C No. 22369 of 2009; Saroj Devi Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 19.4.2019
6. Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Vs Praveen D. Desai; 2015 (128) RD 227 (SC)
7. Chhidda & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2019 0
Supreme (All) 1085
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari and Sri
Vimlendra
Kumar
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Yadav
and Sri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the
lease holder- private respondent No. 8, Sri
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Abhishek
Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.

2. The petitioner before this Court has
been a complainant in respect of grant of
residential leases to various villagers way
back in the year 1973.

3. The petitioner vide paragraph 8 to
the writ petition has taken specific plea that
petitioner's father was one of the eligible
persons for the purposes of allotment of the
residential lease upon the land which was
11 All. Babulal Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
125
reserved for persons belonging to the
scheduled caste, however, there are certain
backward class persons who have been
wholly illegally granted lease. In paragraph
8 to the writ petition it has been averred
that the petitioner being harijan is entitled
to have lease of the land in question. It is
argued that grant of residential lease
belonging to other backward caste (OBC)
was an act of fraud and, therefore, the
complaint even if made after lapse of 46
years, it was sufficient enough for exercise
of suo motu power under Section 198(4) of
the erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 or
the provisions contained under Section 66
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. During the course of the argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner admitted
that father of the petitioner got a small
house constructed upon such land and the
grievance is that people belonging to the
OBC category are interfering with the
possession of the petitioner who is now
living in that house.

5. Per contra, it is argued by learned
counsel appearing for the contesting private
respondents, learned counsel appearing for
the Gaon Sabha and learned Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
that
no
proceedings could be instituted after lapse
of 46 years in respect of the leases granted
way back in the year 1973 as the allottees
have come to be settled upon the land by
raising constructions of their respective
houses inasmuch as petitioner was not even
born in the year 1973 what to say about his
being major to set up any claim of
eligibility. It is also argued that nowhere it
has come in the pleadings nor, in the
complaint that father of the petitioner had
ever put up his claim for grant of lease or
made any complaint against alleged illegal
allotment of residential lease. It is also
argued that other complainant Rajendra
Babu has never approached the Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and their arguments
raised across the bar and having perused
the complaint made by the petitioner as
well as the pleadings raised in the writ
petition, I find that the sole ground taken is
that the land could not have been allotted to
certain persons who did belong to other
backward caste. The petitioner who has
approached this Court was admittedly born
after the year 1973 when the allotment took
place and, therefore, the respondents are
justified in submitting that the petitioner
could not have raised any objection to the
allotment proceedings.

7. As far as the father of the petitioner
is concerned, the respondents are justified
in their argument that nowhere it has come
that father of the petitioner ever filed
complaint or pursued any matter with the
authority. I also find that in the entire
pleadings raised before this Court and in
the complaint made before the authority
concerned, no plea has been taken that
father of the petitioner ever set up any
claim for allotment, rather I find that during
the course of argument the petitioner's
counsel admitted that father of the
petitioner had raised certain constructions
over the abadi land which was reserved for
the persons belonging to the scheduled
caste.

8. The question of consideration of
prayer of petitioner for holding the leases to
be illegal after a lapse of nearly 46 years
seems to bring about a lost situation alive
as if raised at the time of allotment to
reopen an issue whereas much water has
already flown under the bridge ever since
the initial allotment take place made in the
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
year 1973. The parties must have settled
themselves upon the land and except for
five OBC persons the allotment is not being
questioned in respect of other persons who
belonged to scheduled caste. The exercise
of suo motu power in matters of allotment
even if there are certain irregularities
should not be opened after a long long
delay upon a complaint and this aspect has
come to be examined by the Court in a
number of cases in the past.

9. This Court and the Supreme Court
in various of their decisions have held that
even for the purposes of exercise of suo
motu power upon a complaint being made
in that behalf, the old and settled issues
cannot be permitted to be reopened, more
especially when complainant could not
have set up any claim at the time of
allotment.

10. In the case of Pyare Lal and
others
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah
and others; 200598 RD 106, the Court
vide paragraph 10 has held thus:

"10. In the present case, the
petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are challenging the
allotment made by Gaon Sabha in favour of
respondent nos. 5 and 6. However, they can
only be covered under the definition of
aggrieved person if they are able to
demonstrate that the decision of Gaon
Sabha to allot land in favour of respondent
nos. 5 and 6 wrongfully deprived them of
their right of allotment of the said land or
they had any title in the said land. Section
198 of the Act prescribes the order of
preference to be observed while making
allotment of land. Unless, petitioners nos.
1 and 2 demonstrate that they were
applicants for allotment and higher in
order of preference than respondent nos. 5
and 6 and had better claim for allotment
than respondents nos. 5 and 6 and have
been wrongfully and illegally deprived of
their such rights, they cannot be said to be
aggrieved persons. There is not even a
whisper
in
the
pleadings
that
the
petitioners
were
also
applicants
for
allotment of the land and were higher in
preference than respondents nos. 5 and 6.
In the absence of any such pleadings
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to
be aggrieved persons so as to maintain the
proceedings
for
cancellation
of
the
allotment made in favour of respondent
nos. 5 and 6 and as such the writ petition
filed by them is not maintainable."

 (emphasis added)

11. In the case of Ramker Chauhan
v. Commissioner, Azamgarh and others;
2012 (8) ADJ 713, the Court vide
paragraph 4 has held thus:

"4.
The
power
to
initiate
proceedings for cancellation of the land is
provided under Section 198(4) of the Act.
As per this Section, the Collector on his
own motion or on an application of any
person aggrieved by an allotment of land,
may cancel the said allotment if he is
satisfied that the same is irregular. Sub
section (5) of Section 198 provides that no
order for cancellation of an allotment or
lease shall be made under sub-section (4),
unless a notice to show cause is served on
the person in whose favour the allotment or
lease
was
made
or
on
his
legal
representatives. Clause (b) of Section 198
(6) provides that every notice to show cause
mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued
in the case of an allotment of land made on
or after November 10, 1980, before the
expiry of a period of five years from the
date of such allotment or lease or up to
November 10, 1987, which ever be later.
11 All. Babulal Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
127
Thus, it nowhere emerges from sub
section (6) of Section 198 that any
exception is provided in respect of
allotments which have been made in
violation of the statute. The very nature
of the power exercised by the Collector
under
Section
198(4)
is
to
seek
cancellation of those allotment which
have either been obtained irregularly or
illegally. No proceeding can be initiated
beyond the period of limitation as
provided under the statute irrespective
of the fact whether the said allotment is
irregular or illegal."

 (emphasis added)

12. In the case of Jitendra Kumar @
Gopal v. State of U.P. and others; 2018 0
Supreme (All) 822, the Court vide
paragraph 7 has held thus:

"7. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the impugned orders cannot be
sustained. First of all, the notice was
barred
by
limitation.
Secondly,
the
petitioner by an order of the State had
been
declared
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights and the cancellation
of the patta was of no consequence and
thirdly
the
ground
taken
for
the
cancellation of the patta was also not in
existence. If the period of limitation as is
prescribed under the Act of 1950 expires
then no notice can be issued even if
there are irregularities in the patta.
Further even if a suo motu notice is to
be issued by the Collector then also the
question of limitation would arise and
notices have to be issued well within the
time prescribed by the 1950 Act."

 (emphasis added)

13. In the case of Yadram and
others v. State of U.P. and others; 2019
0 Supreme (All) 2712, the Court vide
paragraph held thus:

"5.
Having
heard
learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel and the learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha, I am of the
view that an application for cancellation
of patta could be filed only within three
years of the grant of the same as has
been held by this Court in Writ-C
No.22369 of 2009 (Saroj Devi Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 19.4.2019.
Further,
I
hold
that
even
if
the
application was filed, as has been alleged
to have been filed, on 18.12.1992, the
same could not be acted upon after
notices were issued in the year 2006 as
has been held by this Court in Suresh
Giri & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue,
Allahabad & Ors.2. Limitation is a
question of jurisdiction and it can be
raised at any point of time as has been
held by the Supreme Court in Foreshore
Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs.
Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal
Representatives and others 2015 (128) rd
227 (SC)."

 (emphasis added)

14. Again in recent judgment of
Chhidda and others v. State of U.P. and
others; 2019 0 Supreme (All) 1085, the
Court considered various aspects of the
matter in relation to the power of Collector
under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950 and the limitations prescribed
under Section 198(6) of U.P.Z.A. &L.R.
Act, 1950, the Court vide paragraph 15 has
held thus:

"15. The said
argument does not merits acceptance for
the sole reason that the land in question
has to be set apart for public purposes
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act. In the present case there is specific
argument and document on record to
establish that the consolidation of holdings
proceedings pertaining to the land in
question were never finalized and were
dropped mid away and thus, it cannot be
held that any bar as provided under Section
132 of the Act was triggered relating to the
land in question. I am also not impressed
with the arguments that in the cases which
are covered by Section 132 of the Act, no
limitation would apply. In this regard, it is
relevant to mention that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that
where no limitation is prescribed action
should be taken within a reasonable time,
in the present case the proceedings were
initiated after about 16 years which can
never be termed as a reasonable period.
The relevant observation of the Supreme
Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga
Reddy District and another Vs. D. Narsing
Rao and others, 2015 3 SCC 695 and held
as under:

"25. The legal position is fairly
well-settled by a long line of decisions of
this Court which have laid down that even
when there is no period of limitation
prescribed for the exercise of any power,
revisional or otherwise, such power must
be exercised within a reasonable period.
This is so even in cases where allegations
of fraud have necessitated the exercise of
any corrective power. We may briefly refer
to some of the decisions only to bring
home the point that the absence of a
stipulated period of limitation makes little
or no difference in so far as the exercise
of the power is concerned which ought to
be permissible only when the power is
invoked within a reasonable period.

31. To sum up, delayed exercise
of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon
because if actions or transactions were to
remain forever open to challenge, it will
mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in
human affairs, which is not the policy of
law. Because, even when there is no period
of limitation prescribed for exercise of such
powers, the intervening delay, may have led
to creation of third party rights, that cannot
be trampled by a belated exercise of a
discretionary power especially when no
cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.
Rule of law it is said must run closely with
the rule of life. Even in cases where the
orders sought to be revised are fraudulent,
the exercise of power must be within a
reasonable period of the discovery of
fraud. Simply describing an act or
transaction to be fraudulent will not
extend the time for its correction to
infinity; for otherwise the exercise of
revisional
power
would
itself
be
tantamount to a fraud upon the statute
that vests such power in an authority.

32. In the case at hand, while the
entry sought to be corrected is described as
fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice
impugned before the High Court as to when
was the alleged fraud discovered by the
State. A specific statement in that regard
was essential for it was a jurisdictional
fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in
the notice issued to the respondents. The
attempt
of
the
appellant-State
to
demonstrate that the notice was issued
within a reasonable period of the discovery
of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At
any rate, when the Government allowed the
land in question for housing sites to be
given to Government employees in the year
1991, it must be presumed to have known
about the record and the revenue entries
concerning the parcel of land made in the
ordinary course of official business. In as
much as, the notice was issued as late as on
31st December, 2004, it was delayed by
nearly 13 years. No explanation has been
11 All. Suresh Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
129
offered even for this delay assuming that
the same ought to be counted only from the
year 1991. Judged from any angle the
notice seeking to reverse the entries made
half a century ago, was clearly beyond
reasonable time and was rightly quashed."

 (emphasis added)

15. Thus principle has been discussed
that the law of limitation has been provided in
the Statute also gives accrual to the rights of
other side. Metaphorically, it is true that a
deep-rooted tree should ordinarily not be
uprooted because the roots are so embedded
inside the earth that it may have a very
devastating impact on the nature's ecosystem
whereas the new plants can be replanted
anywhere. Similarly here also, if today the
controversy regarding allotment which is
already settled is reopened after lapse of more
than 4 decades it will cause more damage to
public interest than to serve it. So even on
this count also, this Court will be reluctant in
reopening an issue of allotment of the year
1973.

16. Besides above, the petitioner being
a complainant must have a right on the date
of allotment in question. In the year 1973, the
complainant was not born and, therefore, he
could not have maintained any right to get
allotment of land as residential lease.
Canvassing for right of father, who himself
was not vigilant as he never set up any claim
of his own, cannot be permitted and no such
complaint at the instance of son be
entertained after a lapse of four decades.

17. In such above view of the matter,
therefore, I decline to interfere in the matter.

18. It is, however, open for the
petitioner to apply for residential lease if
Gaon Sabha proposes to do in future.
Insofar as the petitioner's right to continue
in a house constructed upon such land
without there being any interference of
third party is continued the petitioner
always enjoys liberty to apply for a
common law remedy.

19. Writ petition lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 129
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 19871 of 2021

Suresh Singh Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Phool Singh Yadav, Sri Ajay Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vijay Shankar

A. Civil Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Cancellation of arm licence -
Pendency of criminal cases and enmity
with other persons, how far permissible as
the ground - No finding was recorded by
DM that it was necessary for the security
of the public peace or for public safety to
revoke the licence - Effect - Duty of the
cancelling
authority,
how
can
be
discharged - Held, the mere existence of
enmity between a licensee & anr. person
would
not
establish
the
'necessary'
connection with security of the public
peace or public safety - There should be
some
evidence
of
the
provocative
utterances of the licensee or of his
suspicious movements or of his criminal
designs and conspiracy in reinforcement
of
the
evidence
of
enmity
-
The
cancellation of a licence destroys a