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

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 48244 of 1999
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhola-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49150
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 122-B (4F) , 229-B , 129-B(4B) ,
132 & 339(B) - Powers of the Land
Management
Committee
and
the
Collector - it is not necessary to institute
a suit four declaration for getting the
benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) - If the
person is entitled for the benefit of
Section 122-B he would be admitted as
the bhumidhar with non-transferable
right of the land.(Para - 30)

Property in suit belongs to Gram Panchayat -
not a land under Section 132 U.P.Z.A & L.R.
Act as public utility land - petitioner and
respondent no. 5 both belong to Scheduled
Caste
-
after
death
of
wife
(legal
representative) of owner of disputed plot -
land in question vested in Gram Sabha -
petitioner in continuous possession - revision
- revisional court directed to file title
suit.(Para -17 )

HELD:-Right from Lekhpal to S.D.O, were of
the opinion that property in suit is under
occupation of petitioner - who is a member of
Scheduled Caste - at the time of settlement,
he was entitled to taken the benefit of Sub
Section 4-F - accordingly the benefits of Sub
Section 4-F were awarded to him - therefore
there was no occasion to interfere with it -
order of revisional court not justifiable -
quashed - order of S.D.O restored. (Para -
33,35,36,38)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. The S.D.O. in his order has referred
the order of S.O.C. dated 10.11.1964, which
has
been
inscribed
as
Amaldaramad
regarding Arazi No. 545-C in the name of
Jyodhi S/o Charittar, rejecting the name of
the petitioners' father Jeeyut Bandhan S/o
Hans Raj.

19. It is evident from the question
answer that the file decided by the S.O.C had
been weeded out from which it is clear that a
case between the parties had been decided in
favour of Jyodhi. S.D.O has also referred
that as per the report of land Inspector dated
26.04.1987 after the death of Jyodhi
respondents Murali etc. sons of late Jyodhi
are in possession.

20. Learned S.D.O. has also referred a
citation 1988 A.W.C Page 77, in which it is
held that an application can be maintained
under Section 33/39 of the C.H Act for
correction of record based on the basis of
order passed by the Consolidation Court. In
this precedent, it has also been held that there
is no time limit regarding correction of record
on the basis of the order passed by the
Consolidation Court.

21. In this regard, respondents' counsel
has also cited 1986 R D Page 206 - 209, in
which it has also been held that there is no
time limits for correction of the record.

22. The order of the S.D.O. was
challenged in the Court of Commissioner
Varanasi Mandal, Varansi, in revision which
has affirmed the order of S.D.O. The
petitioner's counsel referred some judicial
precedents and argued that since the name of
the revisionist was recorded as Bhumidhar,
with non transferable rights, therefore, their
names could only be challenged by way of
regular suit.

23. Contrary to that, on the basis of
judicial precedents and arguments of the
respondents it had been argued that the
impugned orders have been passed on the
basis of the order of C.O. dated 23.12.1962
and S.O.C dated 10.11.1964, hence the orders
are factually and legally correct and are not
liable to be interfered with and it was duty of
the Collector and Tehsildar to correct the
errors and omissions in the Record - of -
Rights.

24. Thus, it is concluded that the right
title and interest between the parties
predecessors
had
already
been
finally
adjudicated by the C.O and the S.O.C during
the consolidation proceeding, which ended in
favour of the respondents' father Jyodhi and it
was incorporated in Aakar Patra 11 (part II).
Due to insufficient space, it was not
incorporated in the concerned Khata, which
created doubt and the orders of the C.O and
S.O.C were not forwarded and entered in
C.H. Farm No. 41 and 45 and later on in
Khatauni, thus, it is concluded that there was
no basis of the entries in favour of Jeeyut
Bandhan and thereafter the name of the
petitioners were also wrongly entered in the
Revenue Records, mere on the basis of
baseless and illegal entries, no right accrues
to the petitioners. Thus, order of the Courts
below are found to be correct and need no
interference. Therefore, petition lacks merit
and liable to be dismissed.

25.

The
petition
is
dismissed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1 All. Bhola Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
301
Writ-C No. 48244 of 1999

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri C.V.P. Mishra, Sri Ajeet Kumar Baranwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ghanshyam Yadav, Sri P.C.
Srivastava, Sri S.N. Srivastava

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 122-B (4F) , 229-B , 129-B(4B) ,
132 & 339(B) - Powers of the Land
Management
Committee
and
the
Collector - it is not necessary to institute
a suit four declaration for getting the
benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) - If the
person is entitled for the benefit of
Section 122-B he would be admitted as
the bhumidhar with non-transferable
right of the land.(Para - 30)

Property in suit belongs to Gram Panchayat -
not a land under Section 132 U.P.Z.A & L.R.
Act as public utility land - petitioner and
respondent no. 5 both belong to Scheduled
Caste
-
after
death
of
wife
(legal
representative) of owner of disputed plot -
land in question vested in Gram Sabha -
petitioner in continuous possession - revision
- revisional court directed to file title
suit.(Para -17 )

HELD:-Right from Lekhpal to S.D.O, were of
the opinion that property in suit is under
occupation of petitioner - who is a member of
Scheduled Caste - at the time of settlement,
he was entitled to taken the benefit of Sub
Section 4-F - accordingly the benefits of Sub
Section 4-F were awarded to him - therefore
there was no occasion to interfere with it -
order of revisional court not justifiable -
quashed - order of S.D.O restored. (Para -
33,35,36,38)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Raj Kumar Vs Shri S.B. Tewari, S.D.M. G.B.N.
, 2014 (2) RLT (DOC-71) 105

2.
Smt.
Reshma
Devi
Vs
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, 2014 (2) RLT
459

3. Smt. Ramakanti Vs Gaon Sabha, 2013 (2)
RLT (BR) 114

4. Manorey @ Manohar Vs B.O.R. (U.P.) & ,
2003 0 Supreme Court (S.C) 396

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, leaned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused material available on
record.

2. None appeared from the side of
respondent no. 5.

3. This writ petition has been
preferred
against
the
order
dated
22.09.1999(Annexure No. 4 to the writ
petition) passed by respondent no.2 in
Revision No.42/156 (Ram Milan Vs. Bhola
and others) by which the Upper Ayukt
(Prashasan), Basti Mandal, Basti allowed
the revision and cancelled the orders dated
30.12.1995 and 05.08.1997 passed by the
SDM, Bansi.

4. The petitioner has averred in the
writ petition that one Salava son of Ali
Raza was the owner of disputed plot
no.78/1 area 0.2.1 and plot no.84 area
0.10.0 lying in Village Batwasia, Pargana
Bansi Purab, District Siddhartha Nagar.
After his death his wife was recorded as
legal representative. She died issueless
hence the land was vested in Gaon Sabha.
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The petitioner was in continuous
possession for the last 15 years over the
plot in question and his name was
recommended
on
15.12.1995
to
be
substituted and mutated as Bhumidhar with
non-transferable
right.
Tehsildar
recommended
his
name
which
was
approved by SDO, Bansi vide his approval
dated 30.12.1995 which is annexed as
Annexure-1
to
this
writ
petition.
Petitioner's name was recorded over the
plot in question as bhumidhar with
transferable right vide order of the SDO
dated 06.04.1996 which is annexed as
Annexure-2 to this writ petition. After that
an objection was raised before the SDO,
Bansi by respondent no.5, Ram Milan, that
he was in possession and the petitioner had
got his name recorded by playing fraud.
Petitioner filed objection against the
application of the respondent no.5 stating
his case that petitioner was a member of
scheduled castes and he is continuing his
possession much prior to 03.06.1995 and
his name was recorded after verification by
the Revenue Authorities under Section 122B(4)(f) of UPZA & LR Act.

6. The SDO rejected the application
of respondent no.5 holding that he himself
had inspected the spot and had found the
petitioner's possession and rejected the
restoration application of respondent no.5
vide
his
judgment
and
order dated
05.08.1997 which is annexed as Annexure3.

7. Being aggrieved respondent no.5
filed revision before respondent no.2 who
unjustifiably set aside the order dated
30.12.1995
and
05.08.1997
vide
his
judgment and order dated 22.09.1999
which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ
petition. The revisional Court also directed
the parties to get the title decided by a
Competent Court which is wholly unjust
and illegal.

8. Observation of the revisional Court
that Gaon Sabha was not the party is
wholly illegal and unjust and against the
evidence on record as before the revisional
Court Gaon Sabha was respondent no.2.
The SDO has rightly passed the order in
favour of the petitioner who had himself
inspected the spot and found the petitioner
in possession.

9. Hence a prayer has been made to
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari to cancel the order/judgment of
Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Basti Mandal, Basti dated 22.09.1999
passed in Revision No.42/106 and also to
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents
not to dispossess the petitioner from the
plot in question.

10. The petitioner has annexed
following documents in this petition:-

(i) Annexure no.1, photocopy of
the order dated 30.12.1995 passed by SDO,
Bansi certified by oath commissioner;

(ii) Annexure no.2, khatauni 1405
to 1410 fasli certified by oath comissioner;

(iii) Annexure no.3, order dated
05.08.1997 passed by SDO, Bansi, certified
by oath commissioner;

(iv) Annexure no.4, order dated
22.09.1999 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Basti
Mandal,
Basti,
certified
by
oath
commissioner.

11. A counter affidavit has been filed
by respondent no.5 in which it is stated that
the petitioner was never in possession over
the land in question but answering
1 All. Bhola Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
303
respondent came into possession after death
of Makuma widow of Salvan, the land in
question was vested in Gaon Sabha on
18.01.1993 and that time the answering
respondent was in possession but the
petitioner with the collusion of Tehsil
Authorities got recorded his name as
bhumidhar under Section 122-B(4)(5) of
UP ZA Act. The petitioner is not an
agricultural labourer but was working as
teacher after retirement from military
service hence he can not get the benefit of
Section 122-B(4)(F). The S.D.O. neither
made any spot inspection nor examined the
possession of the parties and illegally by
order
dated
05.08.1997
rejected
the
restoration application of the answering
respondent holding possession of the
petitioner without any evidence.

12. The order dated 22.09.1999 is quite
just whereby no harsh and prejudice occurred
to any one. The learned court rightly set aside
the order dated 30.12.1995 by advising the
parties to get declared their title through
competent court.

13. The Gaon Sabha has not been heard
and has not been given opportunity of hearing
before passing the order dated 30.12.1995.
The answering respondent filed a suit under
Section 229-B of UP ZA & LR Act but
proceedings of the same have been stayed
due to interim order dated 08.12.1999 passed
by this Court which is liable to be vacated.
The impugned order does not require any
interference hence the writ petition be
dismissed with costs.

14. A photocopy, certified by the oath
commissioner, of the order dated 17.08.2002
passed by the SDO, Bansi has been annexed.

15. The petitioner has filed rejoinder
affidavit denying almost all the averments
made in the counter affidavit and has said
that respondent no.5 had no concern with
the property in question. The petitioner was
a member of scheduled caste at the time of
recommendation dated 15.12.1995 and was
completing the criteria required under
Section 122-B(4B) of the UP ZA & LR
Act. The petitioner was subsequently
engaged as teacher in February, 1997
which will not adversely affect the
recommendation made earlier. Respondent
no.2 has committed gross illegality while
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
22.09.1999 before the Court of SDO the
Gaon Sabha was a party and it was
provided opportunity of hearing before
passing the order dated 30.12.1995. The
impugned order dated 22.09.1999 is illegal
and unjustified and is liable to be quashed
by allowing the writ petition.

16. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel. None appeared for the respondent
no.5. Perused the file.

17. Admittedly, the property in suit
belongs to the Gram Panchayat and it is not
a land under Section 132 U.P.Z.A & L.R.
Act as public utility land. It is also admitted
that the petitioner and respondent no. 5
both belong to the Scheduled Caste. It is
also admitted that after the death of Smt.
Makuna W/s Salvan, the land in question
was vested in Gram Sabha on 18.01.1993.

18. According to the respondent no. 5,
he was in possession, while according to
the petitioner after the death of Smt.
Makuna, he came into possession over the
property in suit and considering his
possession the property in suit was
recommended for him being a member of
Scheduled Caste on 15.12.1995. Since he
was completing the criteria required under
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 122 - B (4-B), the land was settled
with him. The Tehsildar has recommended
his name and the S.D.O has approved his
name on 30.12.1995, which is evident from
Annexure No. 1. later on he became
Bhumidhar of the property in suit vide
order dated 06.04.1996 by the concerned
S.D.O. These facts are clearly established
from the Annexure Nos. 1 & 2.

19. According to the petitioner and
according to the evidence available on record
when his name was recorded the respondent
no. 5 - Ram Milan came into picture and filed
objection before the S.D.O that he was in
possession and he is also a member of
Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has got his
name recorded by playing fraud. According
to him he was in possession for more than
fifteen years. After hearing both the learned
counsel for the parties, the S.D.O. Bansi
dismissed the objection of the respondent
no.5, considering the facts that the property in
suit had been vested in Gram Sabha first time
on 18.03.1993 after the death of Smt.
Makuma, so it was not possible for
respondent no. 5 to have prior possession for
about fifteen years at the time of filing of
objection. it was noticed that when the name
of the petitioner had been recorded in the
Revenue
Record
only
thereafter
the
respondent no. 5 has raised the objection,
though, the respondent no. 5 had blamed the
Tehsildar, officials and the officers that
virtually he was in possession, he was unable
to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Lekhpal,
therefore the Lekhpal did not make any report
in his favour. There is no proof about it. No
photograph or any other document in respect
of possession except the affidavit of seven
persons, who are not cross examined, have
been relied upon by respondent no. 5.

20. Another objection had been taken
by respondent no. 5 that the petitioner -
Bhola was an Ex-Military personal, he was
Government
Teacher,
therefore,
the
property in suit could not be settled with
him under Section 122-B (4-F). In this
regard the fact had been examined by the
S.D.O and it was found that the property in
suit was settled with the petitioner in the
year 1995 while the petitioner was
appointed as Teacher in the month of
February, 1997, therefore at the time of
settlement of the land with the petitioner,
the petitioner was not in Government
Service but certainly he was the member of
Scheduled Caste. Therefore this objection
is also meaningless.

21. Another fact has also came into
picture that the wife of the petitioner was
Block Pramukh of the concerned Block.

22. According to this Court in the
eyes of law the entity of wife and husband
are separate and distinct and if a person is
entitled of any benefit under the law he
cannot be deprived of the benefit because
of the status of his wife.

23. Another fact has also been
mentioned in the order of the S.D.O. that he
himself visited the spot and found that
petitioner was in possession in the presence
of villagers and none of the villagers had
said that respondent no. 5 - Ram Milan is in
possession over the property in suit.

24. Another question arisen about the
finding of the fact regarding spot inspection
made by the S.D.O. Bansi, Siddharth
Nagar.

25. The Revisional Court made an
interference and opined that the parties
should file a suit for declaration for taking
the benefit of Section 122 - B (4-f) even
after
the
decision
of
the
revision.
1 All. Bhola Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
305
Respondent no. 5 has instituted the suit
under 339 (B) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.

26. Though due to stay order passed
by this Court the proceedings of the case
under Section 229-B has been stopped and
is in abeyance.

27. Section 122-B(4F) is as under:

"122-B. Powers of the Land
Management
Committee
and
the
Collector.--

(4F). Notwithstanding anything in
the foregoing sub-sections, where any
agricultural labourer belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in
occupation of any land vested in a Gaon
Sabha under Section 117 (not being land
mentioned in Section 132) having occupied
it from before May 13, 2007 and the land
so occupied together with land, if any, held
by him from before the said date as
bhumidhar, Sirdar or asami, does not
exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no
action under this section shall be taken by
the Land Management Committee or the
Collector against such labourer, and he
shall be admitted as bhumidhar with nontransferable rights of that land under
Section 195 and it shall not be necessary
for him to institute a suit for declaration of
his
rights
as
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights in that land.

Explanation.-
The
expression
"agricultural labourer" shall have the
meaning assigned to it in Section 198."

28. In this regard following relevant
citations are mentioned herein below:

29. In Raj Kumar Vs. Shri S.B.
Tewari, S.D.M. Gautam Buddh Nagar,
2014 (2) RLT (DOC-71) 105 the question
was as to whether for the benefit of Section
122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 a
suit under Section 229-B is required to be
filed. It was held that it is not necessary to
file the suit under Section 229-B for
claiming the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F)
of the Act, 1950. The impugned order
setting aside the order granting the benefit
of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act was
found unsustainable.

30. In Smt. Reshma Devi Vs.
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur, 2014 (2) RLT 459 the
question was as to whether it is necessary
to institute a suit for declaration for getting
the benefit of the benefit of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Setion122-B (4-F). It was held that it is not
necessary to institute a suit four declaration
for getting the benefit of Section 122-B (4F). If the person is entitled for the benefit
of Section 122-B he would be admitted as
the bhumidhar with non-transferable right
of the land. The very issue was not decided
by the Court below.

31. In Smt. Ramakanti Vs. Gaon
Sabha, 2013 (2) RLT (BR) 114 the Trial
Court passed the order granting the benefit
of Section 122-B(4F) on the basis of the
report submitted by Tehsildar. The appeal
was filed before the Appellate Court. the
appellate Court set aside the order passed
by the trial Court. The order passed by the
Appellate
Court
is
not
sustainable
inasmuch as the same is against the
evidence available on the record. The
impugned order passed by the Appellate
Court was restored.

32. In the last line of Sub Section 4-F,
it has also been mentioned that "it shall not
be necessary for him to institute a suit for
declaration of his right as Bhumidhar with
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
non-transferable
right
in
that
land"
Obviously, the order of the Revisional
Court is not in consonance of Sub Section
4-F.

33. In the facts and circumstances when
the right from Lekhpal to S.D.O, were of the
opinion that property in suit is under
occupation of the petition, who is a member
of Scheduled Caste and at the time of
settlement, he was entitled to taken the
benefit of Sub Section 4-F and accordingly
the benefits of Sub Section 4-F were awarded
to him, therefore there was no occasion to
interfere with it.

34. This aspect has also been
considered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of
Revenue (U.P.) & 2003 0 Supreme Court
(S.C) 396, in which in Para Nos. 3, 9, 10, 11
& 12 are important, in which the Apex Court
has held that: -

"Going by the orders of the Board
of Revenue and the High Court, the
maintainability of an application seeking
recognition of right under Section 122B(4F)
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') is the issue that loomed large before
the Board and the High Court. We are of the
view that it would be travesty of justice to
deny relief to the appellant who is a
Scheduled caste agricultural labourer and
relegate him to an unfortunate situation of
being left without remedy though he has a
statutory right to continue in possession and
enjoyment of the land. The High Court seems
to have taken a narrow view of the rights and
remedies of the appellant, leaving him to
pursue a tortuous course of litigation to
safeguard his rights.

Thus, sub-Section (4F) of Section
122B not merely provides a shield to
protect the possession as opined by the
High Court, but it also confers a positive
right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the
land satisfying the criteria laid down in
that sub-Section. Notwithstanding the clear
language in which the deeming provision is
couched and the ameliorative purpose of
the legislation, the learned single Judge of
the High Court had taken the view in
Ramdin Vs. Board of Revenue (supra)
(followed by the same learned Judge in the
instant case) that the Bhumidhari rights of
the occupant contemplated by sub-Section
(4F) can only blossom out when there is a
specific allotment order by the Land
Management Committee under Section 198.
According to the High Court, the deeming
provision contained in sub-Section (4F)
cannot be overstretched to supersede the
other provisions in the Act dealing
specifically with the creation of the right of
Bhumidhar. In other words, the view of the
High Court was that a person covered by
the beneficial provision contained in subSection (4F) will have to still go through
the process of allotment under Section 198
even though he is not liable for eviction. As
a corollary to this view, it was held that the
occupant
was
not
entitled
to
seek
correction of revenue records, even if his
case falls under sub-Section (4F) of Section
122B. We hold that the view of the High
Court is clearly unsustainable. It amounts
to ignoring the effect of a deeming
provision enacted with a definite social
purpose. When once the deeming provision
unequivocally provides for the admission of
the person satisfying the requisite criteria
laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights under Section
195, full effect must be given to it. Section
195 lays down that the Land Management
Committee, with the previous approval of
the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub
Division, shall have the right to admit any
1 All. Bhola Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
person as Bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights to any vacant land (other than the
land falling under Section 132) vested in
the Gaon Sabha. Section 198 prescribes
"the order of preference in admitting
persons to land under Sections 195 and
197". The last part of sub-Section (4F) of
Section 122B confers by a statutory fiction
the
status
of
Bhumidhar
with
non
transferable rights on the eligible occupant
of the land as if he has been admitted as
such under Section 195. In substance and
in effect, the deeming provision declares
that the statutorily recognized Bhumidhar
should be as good as a person admitted to
Bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read
with other provisions. In a way, subSection (4F) supplements Section 195 by
specifically granting the same benefit to a
person
coming within
the
protective
umbrella of that sub-Section. The need to
approach the Gaon Sabha under Section
195 read with Section 198 is obviated by
the deeming provision contained in subSection (4F). We find no warrant to
constrict the scope of deeming provision.

That being the legal position,
there is no bar against an application being
made by the eligible person coming within
the four corners of sub-Section (4F) to
effect necessary changes in the revenue
record. When once the claim of the
applicant is accepted, it is the bounden
duty of the concerned revenue authorities
to make necessary entries in revenue
records to give effect to the statutory
mandate. The obligation to do so arises by
necessary implication by reason of the
statutory right vested in the person coming
within the ambit of sub-Section (4F). The
lack of specific provision for making an
application under the Act is no ground to
dismiss
the
application
as
not
maintainable. The revenue records should
naturally fall in line with the rights
statutorily recognized. The Sub-Divisional
Officer was therefore within his rights to
allow the application and direct the
correction of the records. The Board of
Revenue and the High Court should not
have set aside that order. The fact that the
Land Management Committee of Gaon
Sabha had created lease hold rights in
favour of the respondents herein is of no
consequence. Such lease, in the face of the
statutory right of the appellant, is nonest in
the eye of law and is liable to be ignored.

It is surprising that the State of
U.P. had chosen to file an appeal against
the order of the S.D.O., in tandem with the
Gaon Sabha. It seems to be a clear case of
non-application of mind on the part of the
concerned authorities of the State who are
supposed to effectuate the socio-economic
objective of the legislation.

The appeal is allowed. The orders
of the Board of Revenue and the High
Court are set aside. The S.D.O's order is
restored. No costs."

35.

The
Principals
laid
in
aforementioned judgements are totally
apples in this case and in view of that this
Court is of the opinion that judgement of
the Revisional Court is not correct.

36.

On
the
basis
of
the
aforementioned discussion, this Court is of
the view that the order of revisional court is
not justifiable and is liable to be quashed
and the revision is liable to be allowed.

37. Accordingly, this revision is
allowed.

38. The order of Revisional Court
dated 22.09.1999 annexed as Annexure no.
4 to this writ petition is hereby quashed and
the order of S.D.O dated 30.12.1995 and
05.08.1997 are restored.
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. Let a certified copy of the order
be sent to the S.D.O. Bansi, District
Siddharth Nagar, for necessary compliance.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 308
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 49973 of 2005

Ramesh Chandra Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Devendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Arms Act 1961 - Section 17 -
Variation, suspension and revocation of
licences - mere pendency of criminal case is
no ground to cancel fire arm licence - mere
involvement in a criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public
interest - Right to possess arms is statutory
right but right to live and liberty is
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution of India - arms licence
should not be suspended in a routine
manner mechanically, without application of
mind and keeping in view the letter and
spirit of Section 17 of the Arms Act. (Para -
16,17,18 )

Arms license and revolver not surrendered
before competent Court - both properties are
still in possession of petitioner - mandamus -
not to compel petitioner for depositing of Arms
License and revolver before anyone - three
cases against petitioner - no case made out - no
trial started against petitioner - apprehension
by District Magistrate and Commissioner -
petitioner
may
breach
public
peace
and
tranquility by misusing fire arm - Grounds of
Section 17 do not exist - no material to establish
that
petitioner
involved
in
any
criminal
activity.(Para - 3,5,15)

HELD:-No
criminal
case
pending
against
petitioner on which basis Arms License could
have been terminated. Order passed by District
Magistrate and Commissioner canceling arms
license of the petitioner are liable to be
quashed.(Para - 23)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors. , 2020 0
Supreme (All) 104

2. Masiuddin Vs Commissioner, Alld. Division,
Alld. & anr., 1972, A.L.J. 573

3. Habib Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2002 (44) ACC
783

4. Satish Singh Vs D.M., Sultanpur , 2009 (4)
ADJ (LB)

5. Chandrabali Tewari Vs The Commissioner,
Faizabad , 2014 (32) LCD 1696

6. Indrajeet Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Writ C
No. 4947 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed
with the following prayer:

"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorary to
quash
the
orders
dated
17.2.2004
(Annexure No.1) passed by respondent no.2
and order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure
No.3) passed by respondent no.3.