# Dharam Singh & Others v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut & Others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 842
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharam-singh-others-v-commissioner-meerut-division-meerut-others-42179
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act
1950-Section
198Cancellation
of
Patta
on
groundauthority
granting
approval-lacks
jurisdiction as S.D.O. Has no authorityafter 25.07.2002-while after amended
provision
Tehsildar
processed
and
recommended
for
allotment-as
such
recommendation be treated as approvalwell within jurisdiction-further putting
signature
by
S.D.O.
is
superfluouscancellation-held-illegal.

Held: Para 9

In the circumstances, it cannot be said
that the approval was bereft of any
orders of the Tehsildar who was the
authority
competent
to
grant
the
approval. Putting of signatures by the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
might
therefore
be
superfluous,
but
the
exercise
of
the
discretion
by
the
Tehsildar
in
supporting
the
recommendations cannot be said to be
an act either without authority or
without jurisdiction. In the opinion of
the Court, the recommendation made by
the Tehsildar will amount to his approval
and in the aforesaid circumstances the
findings recorded by the authorities
below on that count cannot be sustained.
The impugned orders dated 29.8.2007
and 31.12.2007 are hereby quashed for
the aforesaid reasons.

## Text

842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
dated 23.6.2006 passed by respondent no. 2
and order dated 8.11.2006 passed by
respondent no. 3 and direct the respondents
to re-instate the petitioner in service within
three months from the date a certified copy
of this order is produced before them.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2008

Dharam Singh & Others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
& Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:
Sri S.D. Kautilya
Sri Anil Kumar
Sri G.N. Tiwari
Sri Raghubir Singh
Sri S.R.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Rahul Sahai
Sri V.K. Singh

U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Act
1950-Section
198Cancellation
of
Patta
on
groundauthority
granting
approval-lacks
jurisdiction as S.D.O. Has no authorityafter 25.07.2002-while after amended
provision
Tehsildar
processed
and
recommended
for
allotment-as
such
recommendation be treated as approvalwell within jurisdiction-further putting
signature
by
S.D.O.
is
superfluouscancellation-held-illegal.

Held: Para 9

In the circumstances, it cannot be said
that the approval was bereft of any
orders of the Tehsildar who was the
authority
competent
to
grant
the
approval. Putting of signatures by the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
might
therefore
be
superfluous,
but
the
exercise
of
the
discretion
by
the
Tehsildar
in
supporting
the
recommendations cannot be said to be
an act either without authority or
without jurisdiction. In the opinion of
the Court, the recommendation made by
the Tehsildar will amount to his approval
and in the aforesaid circumstances the
findings recorded by the authorities
below on that count cannot be sustained.
The impugned orders dated 29.8.2007
and 31.12.2007 are hereby quashed for
the aforesaid reasons.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri S.K. Purwar for the
contesting respondent no. 4 and the
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha is not present. None
of the other respondents have put forth
any contest to this petition.

2. The petitioners are allottees of
certain land by the Gaon Sabha under the
provisions of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A.
& L.R. Act, 1950. The respondent no. 4
who is the erstwhile gram pradhan
appears to have complained against the
said allotment proceedings as being
without authority in law and one of the
major grounds raised was that the Sub
Divisional Magistrate had no authority to
approve the said allotments after 20th
July, 2002, inasmuch as, the said power
had been conferred on the Assistant
Collector
(Tehsildar)
of
the
area
concerned. It is undisputed that by a
subsequent amendment the powers have
again now been vested in the Sub
Divisional Magistrate. The fact remains
2 All] Dharam Singh and others V. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut & others
843
that in the present case the Sub Divisional
Magistrate has passed the order of
approving the lease on 25th July, 2002
which is during the period when the
amendment was operating.

3. This complaint of the respondent
no. 4 has been accepted and the lease of
the petitioner has been cancelled as the
impugned orders clearly recite that the
lease
has
been
approved
by
an
incompetent authority. The petitioners
have
come
up
before
this
Court
challenging the said orders on the ground
that the aforesaid orders proceed on a
misconception of law and also on
erroneous assumptions of fact, inasmuch
as, the amending Act did confer powers
on the Tehsildar, but a subsequent
approval by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
does not entirely annul the allotment
proceedings. At the most, the Tehsildar
may be required to reconsider the matter
with regard to approval in the event it is
found that there is no approval of the
Tehsildar.

4. Sri Purwar on the other hand
contends that apart from this ground there
were several other infirmities in the grant
of lease, inasmuch as, the petitioners were
not eligible persons entitled to get the
lease. He therefore contends that there
were
other
grounds
available
for
cancellation of the lease even though no
finding
has
been
recorded
in
the
impugned orders as it proceeds simply on
the ground that the Sub Divisional
Magistrate had no authority to grant
approval. Sri Purwar submits that once
the Amendment Act has been brought in
force, the order of approval passed by the
Sub Divisional Magistrate is void abinitio and as such the petitioners cannot
be permitted to place reliance thereon or
take any advantage of the approval by the
Sub Divisional Magistrate.

5. No counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the State or the Gaon
Sabha. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, it is evident from a perusal of
the impugned order and the documents on
record that the entire file relating to
allotment was again processed through
the Tehsildar on 20th October, 2002. The
fact that the file was processed by the
Tehsildar has not been denied and which
is also evident from the impugned orders
itself. The main ground of cancellation
therefore appears to be the exercise of
powers of approval by an incompetent
authority, namely, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, instead of by the Tehsildar.

6. The aforesaid argument of the
respondent that the Sub Divisional
Magistrate had no authority to formally
approve the lease is debatable as in view
of the date of the enforcement of the
amendment as indicated hereinabove, it
was the Tehsildar who was empowered to
accept the recommendations of the Land
Management Committee for allotment of
the land to the petitioners. However it is
to be noticed that even though the powers
were conferred on the Tehsildar with
effect from 20.7.2002, yet the said
amendment was published and notified in
the gazette on 10.9.2002. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate therefore had no
such inkling of any alteration of powers
when he passed the orders on 25.7.2002.
The said order may on subsequent
scrutiny be classified as being hit by a
latent lack of jurisdiction but the
allotments were ratified by the Tehsildar
through his report and recommendation
dated 20.10.2002 (Annexure-4 to the
petition).
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

7. Nonetheless as noticed above, and
which is evident from the records, the
Tehsildar himself processed the file and
recommended that the leases were valid
and did not suffer from any infirmity. In
essence, and in pith and substance, the
Tehsildar applied his mind to the said
allotments and accordingly made a
recommendation that the petitioners were
eligible to receive the said allotment of
lease from the Gaon Sabha. In the opinion
of the Court, once the Tehsildar had
applied his mind being the competent
authority for approval, then in that view
of the matter the Tehsildar will be
presumed to have approved the said
allotment in favour of the petitioners, and
which has been noticed by this Court
while granting an interim order on
22.1.2008. This act of the Tehsildar, even
though subsequent in point of time cannot
be faulted with. The factum of the report
and recommendation of the Tehsildar has
been noticed in the impugned orders. This
fact has been stated in Para 7 of the
petition and has been accepted as a matter
of record in Para 5 of the counter affidavit
of the private respondent. The same has
also not been questioned or disputed in
the counter affidavit.

8. The Tehsildar therefore having
recommended
favourably,
will
be
presumed to have applied his mind to the
same. To approve means to be in favour
of or to judge favourably. It is to
favourably sanction and confirm an act.
This expression is an act of approval,
ratifying an authorized act. It is an assent
which is an approbation through a formal
attestation.
The
Tehsildar's
recommendation was favourable to the
petitioners and therefore it was a conduct
by a competent official approving the
allotment. The respondents have not been
able to bring on record any material to the
contrary nor has the State filed any
affidavit of the Tehsildar controverting
the said fact.

9. In the circumstances, it cannot be
said that the approval was bereft of any
orders of the Tehsildar who was the
authority competent to grant the approval.
Putting
of
signatures
by
the
Sub
Divisional Magistrate might therefore be
superfluous, but the exercise of the
discretion by the Tehsildar in supporting
the recommendations cannot be said to be
an act either without authority or without
jurisdiction. In the opinion of the Court,
the
recommendation
made
by
the
Tehsildar will amount to his approval and
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances
the
findings recorded by the authorities below
on that count cannot be sustained. The
impugned orders dated 29.8.2007 and
31.12.2007 are hereby quashed for the
aforesaid reasons.

10. So far as the issue of eligibility
of the petitioners and the issue of
cancellation
on
other
grounds
of
irregularity is concerned, it is open to the
Collector to take appropriate action in
case he finds that the allotments were
otherwise made in favour of ineligible
persons provided that the limitation as
prescribed under the provisions of Section
198 permit him to proceed to do so.

11. The writ petition is allowed
subject to the aforesaid observations.
---------
2 All] Saddam V. The State of U.P
845
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.06.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Bail No. - 3791 of 2012

Saddam

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Piyush Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-439-Bailoffence under Section 3 of U.P. Provision
of Cow Slaughter Act 1955-allegations
that applicant found driving vehicle
carrying 82 Bullocks and 30 Cows out of
which 6 Bullocks and 4 Cows found
dead-recovery memo nothing mentioned
by which provision of Section 3 and 5
found violated-Learned Magistrate as
well
as
Session
Judge-instead
of
imparting justice without fear and favorappears to have acted on their personal
feelings-which has no scope in Rule of
Law-entitled for bail-general direction
issued for future action.

Held: Para 10

Judges right from the subordinate courts
till to the highest strata cannot legislate
when
the
legislature
has
provided
punishment of fine under Section 11 of
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, how a
Magistrate or Additional Sessions Judge
is rejecting bail application is a matter of
grave concern which casts aspersion
against the control of this Court on the
subordinate courts.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 1975; 1993 (1) SCC (Cri) 149;
178 CAR 107 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
accused applicant and learned counsel for
the State and perused the F.I.R. and other
relevant papers filed in support of the bail
application.

2. Counter affidavit filed today is
taken on record. As per FIR, accused
applicant was found driving vehicle in
which 82 bullocks and 30 cows were
loaded, out of which 6 bullocks and 4
cows were dead. There are no allegations
of violation of any of the provisions
contained in U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955. Section 3 prohibits
slaughtering of cow, bull or bullock and
Section 5 prohibits sale of beef. Both
these prohibitions do not find to have
been voilated, as nothing is mentioned in
the
recovery
memo.
The
learned
Magistrate
and
Learned
Additional
Sessions Judge did not bother to go
through the recovery memo which recites
that none of the accused were found at the
place of recovery nor any weapon of
slaughtering has been recovered.

3. Now, allegations remains for the
offence punishable under Section 11 of
Animal Cruelty Act, which reads as
follows:

"If any person.......(d) conveys or
carries, whether in or upon any vehicle
or not, animal in such a manner or
position as to subject it to unnecessary
pain or suffering; or (e) keeps or
confines any animal in any cage or other
receptacle which does not measure
sufficiently in in height, length and
breadth
to
permit
the
animal
a
reasonable opportunity for movement; or