# Bahadur Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1658
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-13
- **Case number:** Writ- C No. 25710 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bahadur-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44624
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act, 1950 - Section 123C - Allotment - Order
of preference - It is clearly different from
ambit of Rules 115L & 115M of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules -
Provision of S. 123C (7) has no application to
proceeding under Rule 115 P - Impugned
orders set aside. (Para 11 & 12)

Held :-

## Text

1658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sketched map. Justice calls for a finding
based on appreciation of a document
either admitted one to the contesting
parties or affirmed by the authority
rejecting any objection to it on the basis
of statement recorded of such authority or
person who had prepared the argument.
None of the above to ingredients are
found in the order to sustain it. It is true
that the authorities are the not the Court of
justice in strict sense of civil court but
authority who is required to adjudicate
any point or issue it has to apply basic
rules of procedure. While rule of evidence
law may not be strictly adhered to in such
matters but basic principle of law would
certainly be applied that if a report or an
order is placed its genuineness is required
to be proved.

9. The rule of justice imbibes within
it a mechanism that makes access to
justice not only easy and speedy but
efficacious and authoritatively forceful.
This is for the above reason why
adjudicattory
mechanism
is
always
required to be well guarded by rules of
procedure begetting just and fair play.

10. The Apex Court in the case of
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushp Sudan (2016)
8 SCC 509 held: In order that the right of
a citizen to access justice is protected, the
mechanism so provided must not only be
effective but must also be just, fair and
objective in its approach; so also the
procedure which court, tribunal or
authority may adopt for adjudication,
must in itself by just and fair and in
keeping
with
the
well
recognized
principles of natural justice.

11. The Additional Commissioner
has simply concurred with findings
recorded
by
the
Collector
without
adverting to the points so raised and,
therefore,
in
my
opinion
the
Commissioner also manifestly erred in
rejecting the revision petition . For
ignoring the prayer for consideration of
the documents and legal plea taken in the
memo of revision , such order cannot be
sustained in law.

10. In view of above, the order
passed by the Collector dated 25.11.2008
and of the Commissioner dated 12th
March, 2009, Annexures -6 and 7 to the
writ petition respectively are hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted to the
Collector to consider objection afresh
regrading report submitted by Nayab
Tehsildar on 24th February, 2003. The
Collector shall proceed to hear the matter
and decide afresh in the light of
observations made hereinabove in this
order. Entire exercise shall be carried out
by the concerned Collector within period
of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

11. The writ petition is allowed with
the aforesaid observations and directions.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1658

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ- C No. 25710 of 2019

Bahadur Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioners:
2 All. Bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1659
Sri Prem Sagar Verma, Sri Madan Mohan,
Sri H.N. Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Amit Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Rahul Mishra.

A. U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform
Act, 1950 - Section 123C - Allotment - Order
of preference - It is clearly different from
ambit of Rules 115L & 115M of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules -
Provision of S. 123C (7) has no application to
proceeding under Rule 115 P - Impugned
orders set aside. (Para 11 & 12)

Held :-
11. The Board of Revenue has wrongly held
the revision filed by the petitioner to be not
maintainable. It is not in dispute and is
conceded by counsel for respondent no. 5
that the proceedings wherefrom the writ
petition arises under Rule 115 P. It is also
correct
that
the
order
of
preference
provided for allotment under Section 123C
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. and under Rule 115 L
and M are clearly different. An allotment
made under B/122C can be cancelled,
exercising powers conferred by Section
122C(4) which an allotment made under
Rule 115L or 115M can be cancelled on a
complaint under Rule 115P.

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioners and
Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent no. 5.

2. The instant writ petition arises out
of proceedings under Rule 115P instituted
by the petitioners for cancellation of an
allotment made by the Gaon Sabha in
favour of the respondent no. 5 for the
purposes of a cottage industry.

3. The resolution of the Gaon Sabha
in this regard was approved by the S.D.M.
on 23.05.1989.

4. On the cancellation application
under Rule 115P being filed by the
petitioners,
the
A.D.M.
vide
order
29.10.2003
cancelled
the
allotment.
Against this order respondent no. 5 filed
review
which
was
dismissed
on
09.01.2004. A Second review application
was filed on 29.11.2004, which was
allowed
ex-parte
on
27.12.2004.
Thereafter, the complaint under Rule
115P has been rejected on 28.01.2005.

5. Against the order rejecting the
complaint
under
Section
115P,
the
petitioners preferred a revision. The revision
was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2006, the
order passed on 28.01.2005 was set aside and
the original order passed by the A.D.M. on
29.10.2003, cancelling the allotment, was
affirmed.

6. Against this order, the petitioner
preferred a revision before the Board of
Revenue which has been dismissed
holding it to be not maintainable by
referring to Sub section 7 of Section 122C
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

7. The contention of Shri H.N.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate is that
proceedings wherefrom the proceedings
arises under Rule 115P of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules and that proceedings under
Section 122 C and Rule under 115 P are
clearly different. Even the order of
preference provided for allotments under
Section 123C and Rules 115 L and M are
clearly different.

8. Therefore, the Board of Revenue
has committed manifest illegality in
1660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
holding
the
revision
to
be
not
maintainable.
No
finality
could
be
attached to an order of the trial court in
proceedings under Section 115P, by
referring to or taking shelter of sub
section 7 of Section 123 C of the Act.

9. Counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 5 has tried to support the impugned order
by submitting that the allotment was in
accordance with law and that the initial order
of cancellation of the allotment obtained in the
year 2003 had been so obtained by
misrepresentation of facts. The High Court
therefore, in exercise of its equity jurisdiction
should not interfere in the matter.

10. I have considered the submission
made by counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

11. I find merit in the submission of
counsel for the petitioners that the Board
of Revenue has wrongly held the revision
filed by the petitioner to be not
maintainable. It is not in dispute and is
conceded by counsel for respondent no. 5
that the proceedings wherefrom the writ
petition arises under Rule 115 P. It is also
correct that the order of preference
provided for allotment under Section
123C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. and under
Rule 115 L and M are clearly different.
An allotment made under B/122C can be
cancelled, exercising powers conferred by
Section 122C(4) which an allotment made
under Rule 115L or 115M can be
cancelled on a complaint under Rule
115P.

12.
Under
the
circumstances,
therefore the two proceedings cannot be
equated to each other and for this reason
alone, sub section 7 of section 123C has
no application to proceedings under Rule
115 P. For this reason alone, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is hereby set aside.

13. The matter is remanded back to the
Board of Revenue to decide the revision on
its merits after hearing all concerned.

14. It is also provided that this
exercise be completed expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is filed before the Board of Revenue.

15. No costs.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1660

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ- C No. 1438 of 2019

Shanker Shahi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.R. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Devi Prasad Mishra, Sri Arun Kumar

A. Constitution of India - Articles 12 and
226 - Maintainability of Writ - Writ
petition against private person, who is
not the State within meaning of Article
12, is not maintainable. (Para 11)

B. Urban Planning & Development Act,
1973 - Section 33 - Scope of Writ - No