# Ghanshyam Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14965 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghanshyam-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40443
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act-S-122-B (4-f)
Regularization
of
unauthorized
occupation-scheduled cast agriculturer
labour-continuing in possession of Gaon
Sabha
land
since
before
1.5.2002entitled
for
regularization
of
unauthorized possession-utter misuse by
the
Lekhpal-manipulating
favourable
report in favour of those who were
minor-Tehsildar
also
found
envolveDistrict
Magistrate
directed to hold
enquiry before 30.6.05 and to intimate
the Court by action taken.

Held- Para 4

In view of the aforesaid judgment in
Sanjai Kumar's case the petitioner can
get the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of
U.P.Z.A.L.R. only if he can show that his
name was entered in the revenue record
as occupant before 1.5.02 otherwise not.
Mere dropping of the proceeding under
Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act does
not determine any substantive rights.

Case law discussed:
W.P.No. 13191 of 05 decided on 9.3.03
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005

## Text

1 All] Ghanshyam Singh V. State of U.P. and others
321
of two Experts and other allied evidence
on record as considered by the trial court
were very material which lower appellate
court did not take into reckoning and
proceeded to upset the finding on reappreciation
of
evidences
without
considering the evidence of pivotal
importance on record. Therefore, the
question that the lower appellate court
omitted from consideration the evidence
of two Hand-writing Experts is a question
of pivotal significance and the learned
Single Judge while dismissing the second
appeal in limine neither noticed nor
considered the question which in fact was
a
substantial
question of law and
therefore, in the facts and circumstances,
it is a fit case for review by reason of an
error of law apparent on record.

11. Coming to grips with the
decisions cited across the bar by the
learned counsel for the respondents, I
would confine myself to saying that
decisions cited across the bar are
illuminating but they did not squarely
apply to the facts of this case.

12. As a result of foregoing
discussion, I am of the view that it is a fit
case for review.

13. In the result, Review petition is
allowed. In consequence, judgment and
order dated 28.11.2001 passed by this
Court dismissing the appeal in limine is
set aside. In the facts and circumstances
of the case there would be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14965 of 2005

Ghanshyam Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.R. Jaleel
Sri V.K. Singh, S.C.

U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act-S-122-B (4-f)
Regularization
of
unauthorized
occupation-scheduled cast agriculturer
labour-continuing in possession of Gaon
Sabha
land
since
before
1.5.2002entitled
for
regularization
of
unauthorized possession-utter misuse by
the
Lekhpal-manipulating
favourable
report in favour of those who were
minor-Tehsildar
also
found
envolveDistrict
Magistrate
directed to hold
enquiry before 30.6.05 and to intimate
the Court by action taken.

Held- Para 4

In view of the aforesaid judgment in
Sanjai Kumar's case the petitioner can
get the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of
U.P.Z.A.L.R. only if he can show that his
name was entered in the revenue record
as occupant before 1.5.02 otherwise not.
Mere dropping of the proceeding under
Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act does
not determine any substantive rights.

Case law discussed:
W.P.No. 13191 of 05 decided on 9.3.03
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. In Sanjai Kumar Versus Collector
writ petition no. 13191 of 2005 connected
with two other writ petitions decided on
9.3.03 I have held that provision of
Section 122-B(4-f) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act
which
regularizes
unauthorized
occupation of scheduled caste agriculturer
labourer over Gaon Sabha land continuing
since before 1.5.2002, is being utterly
misused. After the substitution of the said
cut off date several members of scheduled
caste manipulated favourable report from
Lekhpal and other revenue authorities to
the effect that the claimants were in
possession since before 1.5.02 in order to
avail the benefit of the aforesaid sub
section 4-f In the said judgment I have
held in para 3 as follows :-

"Whenever a new cut off date for
conferring benefit of Section 122-B(4-f)
of the Act is provided, people belonging
to
scheduled
caste
start
claiming
benefit of the said Section by creating
evidence of prior possession. In view of
this rampant malpractice it is most
essential that whenever benefit of
aforesaid sub section (4-f) is claimed
the claimant must show that he is in
unauthorized possession over Gaon
Sabha land his name is recorded in the
revenue records prior to the cut off
date
or
the
proceedings
for
his
ejectment must be pending since before
the cut off date. If it is not so then no
amount of evidence can be looked into
in that regard. In most of the cases like
the present ones Pradhans, Lekhpals
and other Revenue authorities in
collusion with claimants give wrong
reports of possession of the claimants
prior to the cut off date."

2. In the instant case also position is
exactly similar. Earlier for the same relief
which is claimed in the instant writ
petition petitioner filed Writ Petition No.
4723 of 2005. In the said writ petition it
was stated that the Tehsildar had earlier
decided the matter in favour of the
petitioner on 27.6.03. However, copy of
the said order was not filed. That writ
petition was therefore dismissed with
liberty to filed. That writ petition was
therefore dismissed with liberty to file
fresh writ petition annexing therewith
copy of order dated 27.6.03 passed by the
Tehsildar. Accordingly hence this writ
petition has been filed annexing therewith
copy of order of Tehsildar dated 276.03 as
Annexure 5.

3. The matter relates to Gaon Sabha
plot no. 1413 area 906 hetares (about
9000 sq.met.) situate in village Ataur
Tehsil Sadar, district Ghaziabad. In the
order dated 27.6.03 passed by the
Tehsildar/Assistant Collector (First class),
Ghaziabad it is mentioned that the said
case was initiated on the report of Halka
Lekhpal dated 25.9.02. In the report it was
mentioned that petitioner had occupied
the land in dispute prior to 1410 Fasli and
he was using that for agriculture purpose.
On the basis of said report Case No. 8
under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act
L.M.C. Vs. Ghanshyam was initiated. The
Lekhpal also gave oral statement in the
case and stated that petitioner was
continuously in possession since before
1410 Fasli and petitioner was Balmiki i.e.
scheduled caste and land less agricultural
labourer and he had no means of
livelihood except doing agriculturer in the
land in dispute. It is quite clear that
Lekhpal
was
virtually
gifting
the
govt./Gaon Sabha land to the petitioner.
Petitioner stated that he was in occupation
1 All] Ghanshyam Singh V. State of U.P. and others
323
of the land in dispute for 17 years. Some
persons intervened in the case and stated
that the age of the petitioner was only 31
years hence 17 years before he would
have been only 14 years of age and minor
could not illegally occupy the Gaon Sabha
land and that father of the petitioner was
employed in Nagar Nigam, Delhi. The
Tehsildar did a wonderful thing. He held
that no documentary evidence was filed to
show that the petitioner was in possession
much before 2.5.2002 hence he was
entitled to get the benefit of Section 122B (4-f) of the Act. Thereafter petitioner
filed regular suit under Section 229-B of
the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act (suit no.54 of 200304) Asstt. S.D.O./Assistant Collector
(First Class) Ghaziabad through judgment
and order dated 30.10.04 dismissed the
suit on the ground that relief in the form
of entry of petitioners name as owner
(ought to be Bhumidar) in revenue record
under Section 122-B (4-f) of the Act
could be granted by the Tehsildar himself
and no regular suit under Section 229-B
of U.P.Z.A.L.R. was maintainable for the
said purpose. Thereafter the petitioner
filed an application before Tehsildar on
2.11.04 for entry of his name as Bhumidar
over the land in dispute in the revenue
record. For the same relief another
application was filed by the petitioner on
6.1.05 before S.ED.O., Sadar, Ghaziabad.
Prayer through this writ petition is that
respondents may be directed to decide the
aforesaid application of the petitioner for
mutation of this name in revenue records
over the land in dispute within the time
specified by this Hon'ble Court/

4. In view of the aforesaid judgment
in Sanjai Kumar's case the petitioner can
get the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of
U.P.Z.A.L.R. only if he can show that his
name was entered in the revenue record as
occupant before 1.5.02 otherwise not.
Mere dropping of the proceeding under
Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act does
not determine any substantive rights.

5. The matter is, therefore, sent to
Collector, Ghaziabad to decide the case
after full opportunity to the petitioner and
Gaon Sabha. The petitioner is directed to
appear before Collector, Ghaziabad on
`11. 4.05 and on the said date he shall file
such
evidence,
which
he
considers
necessary. If the name of the petitioner
was recorded as occupant in the revenue
record prior to 1.5.02 then his name must
be directed to be recorded in revenue
record as bhumidhar otherwise petitioner
must at once be ejected from land in
dispute and action must be taken against
Lekhpal and other authorities for giving
false report in the light of the aforesaid
judgment in Sanjai Kumar's case. The
order of Tehsildar dated 27.6.2003 is
utterly illegal and void. No reliance shall
be placed thereupon. Collector shall
decide the proceeding before 30.6.2005
and intimate this Court about the order
passed and action taken by him.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.

6. List this petition before me in
Chamber at 1.430 P.M. on 11.7.05 for
perusal of compliance report of Collector,
Ghaziabad.

7. Let a copy of this order be given
free of cost within three days to Sri S.R.
Jaleel
learned
standing
counsel
for
immediate
communication
to
the
Collector, Ghaziabad.

8. A copy of this order be also given
free of cost to Sri V.K.Singh learned
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
standing counsel for Gaon Sabha Village
Ataur
Pargana
Jalalabad
district
Ghaziabad within three days.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 27.1.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2002

Khalil Ahmad

...Petitioner
Versus
Revisional
Authority,
Bareilly
and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Sugarcane Khandsari Adhiniyam
1961-5-3-B-Power
of
the
Revising
authority- once the option accepted and
adjudicated revising authority- can not
reject
such
option-
legal
position
discussed.

Held- Para 6

Once the appellate authority has set
aside the order passed by the assessing
authority rejecting the application for
option and held that application for
option could not be rejected and the said
order
has
become
final,
revising
authority in exercise of power under
Section 3-B of the U.P. Sugar Cane
Khandsdari Adhiniyam, 1961 can not
reject the option application. Order
dated 10.2.2002 passed by the assessing
authority was only a consequential order
to the appellate order. Once the issue
with regard to the acceptance of the
option has been adjudicated and has
become final from the stage of the
appellate authority, it could not be
cancelled by the revising authority in
exercise
of
revisional
power
under
section 3-B of the Act. In fact revision of
order dated 10.1.2002 which was passed
in pursuance of appellate order amounts
of revising the appellate order, thus it is
without jurisdiction.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. Present writ petition is under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for quashing of the order dated 21.6.2002
passed by Deputy Sugar Commissioner
(Administration),
Revising
Authority,
Bareilly.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was running a Khandsari unit
having licence under the provisions of
U.P.
Khandsari
Sugar
Manufacturer
Licensing Order, 1967. Petitioner was
liable to pay sugar cane purchase tax
under the provisions of 3 of U.P. SugarCane
(Purchase
Tax)
Act,
1961
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Under
the provisions of section 3 of the Act, two
modes were prescribed regarding the
payment of purchase tax, firstly, the tax
was payable on the quantity of sugarcane
actually purchased and secondly, at the
option of the owner of the unit on the
quantity of the sugarcane assessed in
accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The option referred in the provisions subclause (1) of section 3 of the Act should
be exercised by the owner of the unit as
may be prescribed and should relate to the
whole of the assessment year. Option
once exercised shall be irrecoverable for
that year.

3. Petitioner exercised the option to
pay the purchase tax on optional basis for
the year 1986-87 under the provisions of
the Act. The application in Form-13 as