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

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 738
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 35402 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhura-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51337
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Constitutional Law - Panchayat Raj /
Land Allotment - Validity of Gaon Sabha
Land Allotment - The Uttar Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 28-C -
Members and officers not to acquire
interest in contract etc., with Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti - An allotment of Gaon
Sabha land in favour of a blood relative of
an office bearer of the Panchayat or the
12 All. Bhura & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
739
Land Management Committee must be
presumed to be an acquisition by such
member and within mischief of the words
'through a partner or otherwise', occurring
in sub-Section (1) of Section 28-C of the
Act of 1947. (Para -4)

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,
1947 - Section 28-C - embargo against
acquisition of interest in land of the Gaon
Sabha extends to acquisition of interest or
share in a licence or lease, etc., relating to
Gaon Sabha land by the office bearer
'through a partner or otherwise'. (Para 3)

Allotment of Gaon Sabha land to four
brothers of Village Pradhan - made by
resolution of L.M.C. - received approval of
S.D.M
-
allotment
was
made
in
contravention of Section 28-C - which
prohibits a member or office bearer of Gram
Panchayat or L.M.C. - from acquiring
interest in Gaon Sabha land without the
Collector's permission in writing - very
suspicious record of minutes of the L.M.C.
signed
by
Pradhan
alone,
place
the
proceedings under an unignorable cloud of
doubt. (Para - 2 to 4 ,5)

HELD: - Allotment of Gaon Sabha land to the
petitioners was not valid as it was made when
their brother was the Village Pradhan, and the
record of minutes of the L.M.C. was suspicious.
Not a fit case for interference by the Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para -5,6)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned, the same is only with
reference to the third sale deed
executed
on
6.2.1989
by
the
attorney Rajendra Singh for share
of Goma Devi and her three sons.
Thus in result, the principal sale
deed was the deed dated 6.2.1989
and the document in question can
at
best
be
said
to
be
a
supplementary deed whereby the
mistakes occurred in the principal
deed were corrected so as to
complete the transaction between
the parties.

35. Considering the said
aspect, Section 4 of the Act will
come into play and the principal
instrument i.e. sale deed dated
6.2.1989 only shall be chargeable
with duty prescribed in Schedule I
and the document in question i.e.
the supplementary deed shall be
chargeable as per the provision
of Section 4 of the Act. This court
does
not
find
any Article
in
Schedule I of the Act which exactly
covers the deed / document in
question.

39. From the perusal of the
aforesaid judgement, it clearly held that
in order to complete the transaction
between the parties, section 4 of the
Stamp Act will come into play and
subsequent correction deed will not be
chargeable to stamp duty as a fresh deed,
but only charged as per the provision of
section 4 of the Stamp Act.

40. The record shows that the
property in question could not be used or
enjoyed by the petitioner on account of
inadvertent mistake on the part of the
Noida.
41. Once the mistake has been
admitted by the Noida in executing the
correction deed dated 15.07.2015 in favour
of the petitioner no. 1, the said correction
deed, at best, can be treated as completion
of the transaction between the parties.

42. Keeping in view, the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case
as noted above, after perusal of the
available records and considering the points
of law, the writ petition is allowed. A writ
of mandamus is issued to the respondents
to register the correction deed upon
presentation by the parties within 10 days
as per Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 738
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -C No. 35402 of 2024

Bhura & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Deep Chandra Joshi, Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anuj Kumar Gupta, Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.,
Pankaj Kumar Gupta

(A) Constitutional Law - Panchayat Raj /
Land Allotment - Validity of Gaon Sabha
Land Allotment - The Uttar Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 28-C -
Members and officers not to acquire
interest in contract etc., with Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti - An allotment of Gaon
Sabha land in favour of a blood relative of
an office bearer of the Panchayat or the
12 All. Bhura & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
739
Land Management Committee must be
presumed to be an acquisition by such
member and within mischief of the words
'through a partner or otherwise', occurring
in sub-Section (1) of Section 28-C of the
Act of 1947. (Para -4)

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,
1947 - Section 28-C - embargo against
acquisition of interest in land of the Gaon
Sabha extends to acquisition of interest or
share in a licence or lease, etc., relating to
Gaon Sabha land by the office bearer
'through a partner or otherwise'. (Para 3)

Allotment of Gaon Sabha land to four
brothers of Village Pradhan - made by
resolution of L.M.C. - received approval of
S.D.M
-
allotment
was
made
in
contravention of Section 28-C - which
prohibits a member or office bearer of Gram
Panchayat or L.M.C. - from acquiring
interest in Gaon Sabha land without the
Collector's permission in writing - very
suspicious record of minutes of the L.M.C.
signed
by
Pradhan
alone,
place
the
proceedings under an unignorable cloud of
doubt. (Para - 2 to 4 ,5)

HELD: - Allotment of Gaon Sabha land to the
petitioners was not valid as it was made when
their brother was the Village Pradhan, and the
record of minutes of the L.M.C. was suspicious.
Not a fit case for interference by the Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para -5,6)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar
Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the
petitioner in support of the motion to admit
this petition to hearing at length, Mr. Anuj
Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the non-party caveator under
Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the Rules of
Court, 1952 and Mr. Amresh Kumar
Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
No one appears on behalf of respondents
Nos. 4 and 5.

2. Plots of land comprised in Gata
No.419, admeasuring a total of 0.9790
hectare, situate in Village Asharpur, Tehsil
and District Sambhal were allotted in the
year 2000 in favour of four brothers, to wit,
Bhura, Akhtar, Munna and Tahir, all sons of
Ishtiaq Hussain. Bhura was allotted Gata
No.419/1, admeasuring 0.2460 hectare,
Akhtar Gata No.419/2, admeasuring 0.2460
hectare,
Munna
Gata
No.419/3,
admeasuring 0.2440 hectare and Tahir Gata
No.419/4, admeasuring 0.2430 hectare.
They were granted agricultural patta by a
resolution
of
the
Land
Management
Committee,
Village
Asharpur
dated
15.01.2000. The resolution received the
approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Sambhal on 27.02.2000. There is nothing
objectionable to the said settlement, but for
one fact that renders it invalid and utterly
vitiated. All the allotments when made on
15.01.2000 by the Land Management
Committee, the Gram Pradhan was Kallu
son of Ishtiaq Hussain, the fifth brother of
these allottees. Section 28-C of the Uttar
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short,
'the Act of 1947') reads:

"28-C.
Members
and
officers not to acquire interest in
contract
etc.,
with
Bhumi
Prabandhak
Samiti.-
(1)
No
member of office bearer of [Gram
Panchayat] or Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti shall, otherwise than with
the permission in writing of the
Collector, knowingly acquire or
attempt to acquire or stipulate for
or agree to receive or continue to
have himself or through a partner
or otherwise any share or interest in
any licence, lease, sale exchange,
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contract or employment with, by or
on behalf of the Samiti concerned;
Provided that a person shall
not be deemed to acquire or attempt
to acquire or continue to have or
stipulate for or agree to receive any
share or interest in any contract or
employment by reason only of his -

(a) having acquired any
interest
before
he
became
a
member or office bearer;
(b) having a share in a joint
stock company which makes the
contract; and
(c) having a share or
interest in the occasional sale
through the Samiti concerned of an
article in which he regularly trades
upto a value not exceeding Rs. 50
in any one year.
(2) No court or other
authority shall enforce at the
instance of any person a claim
based
upon
a
transaction
in
contravention of the provisions of
subsection (1)."

3. A reading of the orders impugned
passed by the two Authorities below, that is
to say, the Collector, Sambhal dated
06.09.2023 and the revisional order passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner-II,
Moradabad
Region,
Moradabad
dated
26.09.2023, show that they are categorical
in their findings that the allotment was
made in the petitioners' favour, when their
brother was the Village Pradhan. It is true
that the embargo under Section 28-C
against acquisition of interest in land of the
Gaon Sabha is upon a member or an office
bearer of the Gram Panchayat or the Land
Management
Committee
without
the
Collector's permission in writing and not
upon members of his family as such.
However, the provision does stipulate very
clearly that the embargo upon the office
bearer would extend to acquisition of
interest or share in a licence or lease etc.,
relating to Gaon Sabha land by the office
bearer 'through a partner or otherwise'.

4. The sudden and odd allotment
of Gaon Sabha land to four brothers of the
Village Pradhan raises a presumption,
given the prevalent social conditions and
the rather poor moral values that the
allotment after all was an acquisition by the
Pradhan himself, though in the name of his
brothers. It is too much of a coincident to
be accepted for truth that all the four
brothers of the Pradhan were found suitable
for allotment of the agricultural pattas in
issue, assuming that they were all eligible.
Section 28-C is a provision brought to
curtail the mischief of nepotism and
annexation of public property by the
elected office bearers of the Panchayat or
the Land Management Committee, in
whose trust it is placed. The provision,
therefore, has not to be interpreted literally,
but very purposively. A pedantic approach
that mathematically reads the statute to
mean that it would place an embargo upon
the right of a member or office bearer alone
to acquire interest in Gaon Sabha land,
without prior permission of the Collector,
would ultimately defeat its purpose. An
allotment of Gaon Sabha land in favour of
a blood relative of an office bearer of the
Panchayat or the Land Management
Committee must be presumed to be an
acquisition by such member and within
mischief of the words 'through a partner or
otherwise', occurring in sub-Section (1) of
Section 28-C of the Act of 1947. If this
presumption of fact, which of course would
be rebuttable, is not raised, the very
purpose of Section 28-C of the Act of 1947
would stand defeated.
12 All. Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
741
5. In this case, matters become all
the more suspicious because on a perusal of
record, the Collector has returned a finding
to the effect that the allotment papers show
that the minute book of the Gaon Sabha of
the day does not carry the signatures or
thumb impressions of members of the Land
Management Committee and at the end of
the resolution, the Gram Pradhan alone has
signed it. In the same manner, the agenda
too is signed by the Pradhan alone and not
by the other members of the Land
Management Committee or the Lekhpal.
The allotment being in favour of the four
brothers of the Pradhan, the very suspicious
record of minutes of the Land Management
Committee, signed by the Pradhan alone,
place the proceedings under an unignorable
cloud of doubt.

6. I do not find it to be a fit case
for interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.

7. In the result, this petition fails
and stands dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 741
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ -C No. 39926 of 2024

Nagar Palika Parishad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Umesh Vats

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., J.N. Maurya
(A) Environmental Law - Writ Jurisdiction
-
Competence
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (U.P. P.C.B.) to
impose environmental compensation -
Constitution of India - Article 226, The
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 -
Section 3 - Municipality , National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 15 - Relief,
compensation and restitution, Section 22 -
Appeal before Supreme court , Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016 - National Green
Tribunal has adjudicatory powers and
cannot be delegated to an administrative
authorities
-
Any
challenge
to
an
environmental compensation order issued
in compliance with N.G.T. directions must
be raised before the N.G.T. or Supreme
Court under Section 22 of the N.G.T. Act,
2010 - Writ court cannot stay or interfere
with an order passed in furtherance of
N.G.T. directives.(Para -21)

Nagar Palika Parishad was directed by U.P.
P.C.B. to pay an environmental compensation -
for improper waste management and dumping
garbage in residential areas - assessment was
based on the directions of the N.G.T - taken suo
motu cognizance of a complaint regarding
environmental violations - petitioner challenged
the demand - only the N.G.T. has the authority
to assess and impose such penalties. (Para - 2
to 9)

HELD:
-
Writ
petition
challenging
environmental
compensation
assessed
in
compliance with National Green Tribunal
(NGT) orders cannot be maintained in writ
jurisdiction. Petitioner has an alternative
remedy available before the NGT or the
Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT
Act, 2010. Granting relief would interfere with
NGT orders, which is not permissible. No
interim or final relief can be granted. (Para -
20 to 22)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Appellants Trust & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & ors.,
2022 Supreme (SC) 772