# Bhupendra Singh v. Ziladhikari, Amethi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 853
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-27
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 19318 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhupendra-singh-v-ziladhikari-amethi-ors-47406
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Land Law - U.P. Revenue Code -
Sections 67 & 230 - U.P. Zamindari
abolition & Land Revenue Act, 1950:
Section 122-B - Section 230 of the Code
clearly shows that all the notifications and
powers conferred under the earlier Act, which
are not in conflict with the Code, will continue to
be in force. Under Section 122-B of the Act of
1950 similar provisions existed and powers of
the Assistant Collector under the Acts were
delegated to the Tehsildar. In absence of any
conflict, and Sections being parallel to the
earlier Acts, the conferment of power is saved
under Section 230 of the Code. (Para 8-10) (E10)

## Text

9 All Bhupendra Singh Vs. Ziladhikari, Amethi & Ors.
853
been observed that the withdrawal of
exemption "in public interest" is a matter of
policy and the courts would not bind the
Government to its policy decisions for all
times
to
come,
irrespective
of
the
satisfaction of the Government that a
change in the policy was necessary in the
"public interest". It has been held that
where the Government acts in "public
interest" and neither any fraud or lack of
bonafides is alleged, much less established,
it would not be appropriate for the court to
interfere with the same."

17. The rent agreement was between
the petitioner and the firm. Admittedly,
official opposite parties were not party to it.
The official opposite parties i.e. Madhyanchal
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and its officials
entered into an agreement with the firm
naming Variegate Projects Private Limited for
rural electrification. Petitioner was not a party
to it. It appears in pursuance to the said
contract between the firm and official
opposite parties the firm took the premises of
the petitioner for storing electrical goods etc,
but did not pay the rent. In the meantime, the
firm was blacklisted. On such blacklisting the
official opposite parties stationed guards at
the premises for safety of the electrical goods
kept in the rental premises as they belonged
to them. For that period rent or consideration
whatever it may be called was paid by the
official opposite parties to the petitioners. In
so far as other dues i.e. rent payable by the
firm, it is a dispute between the petitioner and
firm. We fail to comprehend as to how
official opposite parties can be made liable in
this regard. There in nothing on record to
show that the Executive Engineer was ever
authorized by the Corporation to give any
such assurance, even if given, on which
aspect we are not recording any finding, for
payment of such rent.

18. We have already considered above
that the writ petition involves disputed
questions of fact and consequently what we
find is that a clear, sound and positive
foundation has not been laid in the writ
petition for invoking the doctrine of
legitimate expectation.

19. We are of the opinion that such
matters are not amenable to writ jurisdiction
merely because the official opposite parties
are instrumentalities of State, as, essentially, it
is a dispute pertaining to rent involving a
money claim and complicated as also
disputed question of fact as also pinciples of
civil law are involved. The petitioner may
therefore pursue other civil remedies as may
be prescribed in law.

20. Observation made herein are only
for purpose of these proceedings and shall not
have any bearing on such other proceedings,
if initiated by the parties herein.

21. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is dismissed, but with the aforesaid
observations.
----------
(2021)09ILR A853
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Misc. Single No. 19318 of 2020

Bhupendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Ziladhikari, Amethi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rudra Mani Shukla, Girish Chandra Sinha,
Mayank Sinha
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Land Law - U.P. Revenue Code -
Sections 67 & 230 - U.P. Zamindari
abolition & Land Revenue Act, 1950:
Section 122-B - Section 230 of the Code
clearly shows that all the notifications and
powers conferred under the earlier Act, which
are not in conflict with the Code, will continue to
be in force. Under Section 122-B of the Act of
1950 similar provisions existed and powers of
the Assistant Collector under the Acts were
delegated to the Tehsildar. In absence of any
conflict, and Sections being parallel to the
earlier Acts, the conferment of power is saved
under Section 230 of the Code. (Para 8-10) (E10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner, challenging the order dated
14.10.2020
passed
by
the
Collector,
District Amethi in Case No.652 of 2020
"Bhupendra Singh vs. Tehsildar, Gauriganj
and others".

2. The facts of the case are that the
Tehsildar,
Gauriganj,
District
Amethi
initiated proceedings under Section 67 of
the U.P. Revenue Code (for short 'the
Code') against the petitioner for his eviction
on the ground that he is on wrongful and
unauthorized occupation of the property of
the Gaon Sabha and by an order dated
15.09.2020, eviction order was passed by
the Tehsildar, Gauriganj, District Amethi.
Against the said order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal under Section 67 of the
Code before the Collector, District Amethi.
After hearing the appeal, the Collector,
District Amethi, by his order dated
14.10.2020, finding that proper opportunity
of hearing was not given to the petitioner,
remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar,
Gauriganj, District Amethi with a direction
that
the
matter
may
be
decided
expeditiously on merits, after giving proper
opportunity of evidence and hearing to the
petitioner. Present writ petition is filed
against
the
aforesaid
order
dated
14.10.2020
passed
by
the
Collector,
District Amethi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised a ground that proceedings under
Section 67 of the Code can be initiated and
decided by an Assistant Collector and,
therefore, the Tehsildar would not have any
jurisdiction to hear the said proceedings.
He further submits that there is no
delegation of power made under the Code
and, therefore, in absence of any such
delegation, the Tehsildar cannot exercise
the power of Assistant Collector.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has filed
a counter affidavit and submitted that on
29.12.2020, such a notification has been
issued by the State Government, whereby
the powers of the Assistant Collector with
regard to Section 67 of the Code are
delegated to the Tehsildar and Tehsildar
(Judicial) w.e.f. 11.2.2016 and, therefore,
the Tehsildar and Tehsildar (Judicial) can
exercise power of the Assistant Collector.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
there
cannot
be
any
retrospective delegation of power by a
notification and such power can be
exercised by the Tehsildar only with effect
from
the
date
of
notification
i.e.
29.12.2020. He submits that since the
present proceedings were initiated much
before that, therefore, the same are not
maintainable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
Sri
Girish
Chandra
Sinha,
learned Standing Counsel for the State Sri
9 All Bhupendra Singh Vs. Ziladhikari, Amethi & Ors.
855
V.P. Nag, Sri Pankaj Gupta for the private
respondent and perused the record.

7. Section 230 of the Code reads as
follows:

"230. Repeal- (1) The enactments
specified in the First Schedule are hereby
repealed.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), the repeal of
such enactments shall not affect-

(a) the continuance in force of
any such enactment in the State of
[Uttarakhand] "Uttaranchal" by U.P. Act
No.4 of 2016 (w.e.f. 16.12.2015);

(b) the previous operation of any
such enactment or anything duly done or
suffered thereunder; or

(c) any other enactment in which
such
enactment
has
been
applied,
incorporated or referred to; or

(d) the validity, invalidity, effect
or consequences of anything already done
or suffered, or any right, title or obligation
or liability already acquired, accrued or
incurred (including, in particular, the
vesting in the state of all estates and the
cessation of all rights, title and interest of
all the intermediaries therein), or any
remedy or proceeding in respect thereof, or
any release or discharge of or from any
debt, penalty, obligation, liability, claim or
demand, or any indemnity already granted
or the proof of any past act or thing; or

(e) any principle or rule of law or
established jurisdiction, form or course of
pleading, practice or procedure or existing
usage,
custom,
privilege,
restriction,
exemption, office or appointment :

Provided that anything done or
any action taken (including any rules,
manuals, assessments, appointments and
transfers made, notifications, summonses,
notices, warrants, proclamations issued,
powers
conferred,
leases
granted,
boundary marks fixed, records of rights
and other record prepared or maintained,
right acquired or liabilities incurred)
under any such enactment shall, in so far
as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Code, be deemed to have
been
done
or
taken
under
the
corresponding provisions of this Code,
and shall continue to be in force
accordingly, unless and until they are
superseded by anything done or action
taken under this Code." (Emphasis added)

8. A perusal of proviso to Section 230
of the Code, clearly shows that all the
notifications and powers conferred under
the earlier Act, which are not in-conflict
with the U.P. Revenue Code, continue to be
in force.

9. Admittedly, under Section 122-B
of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, similar
provisions existed and powers of the
Assistant Collector under the said Acts
were delegated to the Tehsildars. In State
of U.P., since the very initial stage, such
powers are exercised by the court of
Tehsildar.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not point out any conflict between
the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code with
the earlier notifications or power conferred
upon the Tehsildar. In absence of any
conflict, and Sections being parallel to the
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier Acts, the conferment of power is
saved under Section 230 of the Code.

11. The Notification dated 29.12.2020
issued by the State Government, at best, is
only clarificatory and reconfirms the
position which always existed under law.
Therefore, there is no force in the ground
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

12. In view of aforesaid, present writ
petition is dismissed.

13. However, respondent no.2Tehsildar, Gauriganj, District Amethi, is
directed to decide the proceedings as
directed by the Collector, District Amethi,
by
his
order
dated
14.10.2020,
as
expeditiously as possible.

14. It is made clear that the Tehsildar,
Gauriganj, District Amethi, shall not grant
any unnecessary adjournments including on
the ground of strike of lawyers.

15. The other connected matters i.e.
Writ Petition Nos.25301 (MS) of 2020 and
894 (MS) of 2021 are delinked from this
writ petition.
----------
(2021)09ILR A856
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 36348 of 2019

Shiv Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Brijesh Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Neeraj Chaurasiya , S.G. Singh

A. Cooperative Societies - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 128, 98 &
99 - U.P. Cooperative Societies Rule, 1968
- Rule 269 - The Court held that there is no
power of review in the Registrar against its
order passed under Section 128 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, but if the order
has
been
passed
under
an
erroneous
assumption of its own power going to the root
of the matter, or, if, inter alia, it is found that
there was willful suppression of material fact or
fraud was practiced the Registrar will have the
power to review its earlier order.

The scope of Rule 269 of the Rules, 1968 is only
for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes
in judgments or orders or errors arising therein
from any accidental slip or omission and any
error or omission which goes to the merits of
the case is beyond the scope of rule 269 of the
Rules,
1968.
Therefore
the
order
dated
11.11.2019
is
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction.(Para 26)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Patel Narshi Thakershi & ors. Vs Shri
Pradyumansinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273

2. Lily Thomas, Etc. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2006) SCC
224

3. Dwaraka Das Vs St. of M.P. & ors. (1999) 3
SCC 500 (followed)

4. St.of Pun. Vs Darshan Singh (2004) 1 SCC
328

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
standing counsel for opposite party Nos. 1
and 2 and Sri S.G.Singh, learned counsel