# Harbar Chamar v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 784
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-22
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 15899 of 1985
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harbar-chamar-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-allahabad-ors-49188
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Sections 112-B & 122-B (4-F) - -
Whether
Lekhpal
in
his
individual
capacity, without any resolution of the
Gaon Sabha, has right to file restoration
application against the order conferring
sirdari right? - Petitioner, belonged to
the scheduled caste & was a landless
agricultural
laborer
-
Proceedings
initiated u/s 122-B UPZLR Act - Lekhpal
stated that the petitioner had been in
possession since June 1976 - In a report
dated
30.03.1977,
the
Tehsildar
mentioned that the petitioner had been
in possession since before 30.06.1975
and recommended that the petitioner be
declared a Sirdar in accordance with
Section
122-B
(4-F)
of
the
Act
-
Subsequently, the Sub Divisional Officer
dropped the proceedings u/s 122-B of
the Act and conferred Sirdari rights on
the petitioner - Later, the Lekhpal filed a
restoration
application
against
the
Tehsildar's order - Held - Petitioner,
being a member of the scheduled caste
community and a landless agricultural
laborer, & had been in continuous
possession since before 30.06.1975 -
relevant
date
of
possession
under
Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act was now 13.05.2007 instead of
30.06.1975 - Lekhpal in his individual
capacity, without any resolution of the
Gaon
Sabha,
has
no
right
to
file
restoration application, which was in
violation of para 128 of the Gaon Sabha
Manual - trial court, without affording
the petitioner an opportunity for a
hearing, unlawfully set aside the earlier
order - Board of Revenue arbitrarily
dismissed the revisions filed by the
petitioner - Earlier order of trial court
dated 19.04.1977 granting benefit of
section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
in favour of petitioner affirmed (Para
18)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made under order of court in execution of
any decree or order for payment of money.
The Legislature was aware of the fact that
the sale by an auction may come up for
consideration in execution of a decree which
specifically excludes the said sale under
Section 23 of the Act. No such specific
provision has been made under Section 157A of the Act. In the circumstances Section 23
does not advance the arguments made on
behalf of the petitioner but in fact supports
the view which I have already taken above.
In any case as I have already stated above
here it is not a case for transfer by the
petitioner in favour of a third party. It is a
case of an auction sale held in pursuance of
the decree by the court passed against the
petitioner."

14. Considering the provisions of
Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as
well as ratio of law laid down in Shyam
Sunder (supra) & Ram Saran (supra), it is
very much clear that bar of Section 157-A of
the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act will not be
applicable in the present matter where the
sale deed has been executed after auction sale
by state in favour of petitioner who belongs
to upper caste irrespective of the fact that
earlier owner of the land who was borrower,
belongs to scheduled caste community.

15. So far as the dismissal of revision
by the Board of Revision on the ground of
limitation is concerned, the Apex Court in the
case
of
Collector,
Land
Acquisition
Anantnag and Another (supra) has held that
in place of deciding the dispute on technical
ground, the controversy should be conducted
on merits.

16. In the present case, since the bar of
Section 157-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is
not applicable, as such, the Board of Revenue
in place of dismissing the revision on
limitation, should have considered the
revision on merit, as such, the impugned
revisional order cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. The order impugned passed by
the Additional Collector, rejecting the recall
application of the petitioner on the ground
that petitioner has no authority in the
proceeding under Section 157-A of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, is also erroneous.

17.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as the ratio
of law laid down by this Court, the right of
the petitioner cannot be infringed and the
property cannot be vested in the State due to
bar contained under Section 157-A of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, the impugned order
dated 23.2.2018 passed by the Board of
Revenue and orders dated 9.4.2009 and
6.10.2008 passed by the Additional Collector
(Administration), District Bijnor are liable to
be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

18. The writ petition stands allowed
and the petitioner's entry shall remain intact
on the basis of the sale deed executed in
favour of the petitioner on 27.3.2001 in
respect of the disputed plots.

19. No order as to costs.
----------

(2023) 1 ILRA 784
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 15899 of 1985

Harbar Chamar ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents
1 All. Harbar Chamar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
785
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjai Srivastava, Sri H.N. Pandey, Sri
Rajesh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri M.N. Singh, Sri Bhupendra Kumar
Tripathi

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Sections 112-B & 122-B (4-F) - -
Whether
Lekhpal
in
his
individual
capacity, without any resolution of the
Gaon Sabha, has right to file restoration
application against the order conferring
sirdari right? - Petitioner, belonged to
the scheduled caste & was a landless
agricultural
laborer
-
Proceedings
initiated u/s 122-B UPZLR Act - Lekhpal
stated that the petitioner had been in
possession since June 1976 - In a report
dated
30.03.1977,
the
Tehsildar
mentioned that the petitioner had been
in possession since before 30.06.1975
and recommended that the petitioner be
declared a Sirdar in accordance with
Section
122-B
(4-F)
of
the
Act
-
Subsequently, the Sub Divisional Officer
dropped the proceedings u/s 122-B of
the Act and conferred Sirdari rights on
the petitioner - Later, the Lekhpal filed a
restoration
application
against
the
Tehsildar's order - Held - Petitioner,
being a member of the scheduled caste
community and a landless agricultural
laborer, & had been in continuous
possession since before 30.06.1975 -
relevant
date
of
possession
under
Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act was now 13.05.2007 instead of
30.06.1975 - Lekhpal in his individual
capacity, without any resolution of the
Gaon
Sabha,
has
no
right
to
file
restoration application, which was in
violation of para 128 of the Gaon Sabha
Manual - trial court, without affording
the petitioner an opportunity for a
hearing, unlawfully set aside the earlier
order - Board of Revenue arbitrarily
dismissed the revisions filed by the
petitioner - Earlier order of trial court
dated 19.04.1977 granting benefit of
section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
in favour of petitioner affirmed (Para
18)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manorey @ Manohar Vs Board of Revenue &
ors. A.I.R. 2003 SC 4102 2003 (94) RD 538

2. Azimullah Vs Gram Sabha 1971 R.D. 115

3. Jagdish Pandey (dead) through LRs. Vs
Additional Collector (City) Gorakhpur & ors.
2011 (114) RD 106

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tripathi
and Mr. H.N. Pandey, Counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr.
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for
respondent Nos.4 and 6.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P.
Z.A.& L.R. Act was initiated against the
petitioner in respect to plot No.314 area
1.28 acre on the basis of report of lekhpal
that petitioner is in illegal possession of
Gaon Sabha land. Petitioner filed his
objection stating that petitioner belongs to
scheduled caste community and he is in
possession of disputed plot since before
30.06.1975 and having land less than one
(1) acre as such petitioner is entitled to be
recorded as sirdar. Lekhapl was examined
before the Court and stated that petitioner
belongs to scheduled caste community, his
possession is since June 1976. SubDivisional
Officer
vide
order
dated
19.04.1977 on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence on the record of the
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case has declared the petitioner as sirdar of
the plot in dispute. A restoration application
without any prayer for condonation of
delay has been filed by lekhpal on
25.05.1977 to recall the order dated
19.04.1977. The Sub-divisional officer vide
his order dated 12.10.1977 allowed the
restoration application setting aside the
order dated 19.04.1977 and sent the record
before Tehsildar for necessary action.
Petitioner challenged the order dated
12.10.1977
before
the
Commissioner
through
revision
and
Additional
Commissioner recommended the revision
before Board of Revenue through reference
vide order dated 19.09.1978 that revision
be allowed on the ground the Lekhpal in
his individual capacity has no right to file
restoration application and Sub-Divisional
officer without hearing the petitioner has
set aside the order dated 19.04.1977, but
board
of
revenue
vide
order
dated
10.07.1985 dismissed the revision of
petitioner and maintained the order of trial
court date 12.10.1977. Hence this writ
petition.

3. This court while entertaining the
writ petition has passed the following
interim order dated 12.11.1987:-

"Mr.
K.
B.
Garg,
learned
counsel for the gaon sabha prays for and
is granted two months' time for filing a
counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if
any, may be filed within another one
month. List the petition for admission on
08.03.1988.

Until further orders of this
Court,
the
petitioner
shall
not
be
dispossessed from the land in dispute."

4. On 04.07.1988 writ petition was
admitted and following interim order was
passed:-

"Issue notice.

Until further orders of this
Court,
the
petitioner
shall
not
be
dispossessed from the land in dispute."

5. In pursuance of the order dated
12.11.1987/ 04.07.1988 Standing Counsel
filed counter affidavit along with stay
vacation application on 09.05.2012 which
was heard and disposed of vide order dated
24.07.2012, the order runs as follows:-

"This
is
a
stay
vacation
application filed on behalf of respondents
no. 3 and 5 along with counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that he does not intend to file rejoinder
affidavit.

According to learned Standing
Counsel under the interim orders dated
04.07.1988
and
12.11.1987
the
dispossession of the petitioner from the
land in dispute has been stayed which
requires to be vacated in view of the
averments made in the counter affidavit to
the effect that although the Tehsildar had
recommended that the petitioner would be
entitled and be given benefit of Section
122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but
the Lekhpal was competent to file a
restoration application against the said
order
of
the
Tehsildar
since
the
proceedings under Section 122-B were
initiated on the report of the Lekhpal.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has submitted that under the
impugned order passed in Reference no.
208 of 1978-79 (Harbar Chamar Vs Board
of Revenue and others) the revisional
court has illegally held that the Lekhpal
could file an application to recall the
order dated 30.3.1977 passed by the
Tehsildar wherein he had recommended
that the petitioner be declared Sirdar in
accordance with Section 122-B (4-F) of
1 All. Harbar Chamar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
787
the Act whereupon the Sub Divisional
Officer had dropped the proceedings
under Section 122-B of the Act and
conferred sirdari rights on the petitioner.
He states that once the sirdari rights had
been conferred on the report of the
Tehsildar the Lekhpal could not have filed
a restoration application.

The
submissions
require
adjudication.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
circumstances
the
stay
vacation
application stands dismissed. The interim
order dated 4.7.1988 stands confirmed.

No order is passed as to costs"

6.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that petitioner belongs to the
scheduled caste Community and is a
landless agricultural labourer. He further
submitted that petitioner is in possession
since
before
30.06.1975.
He
further
submitted that trial court on the basis of
report submitted by the Tehsildar has
granted benefit of Section 122B (4F) of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 in favour of the
petitioner and declared the petitioner as
sirdar vide order dated 19.04.1977. He next
submitted that against the order of trial
court dated 19.04.1977 Lekhpal filed a
restoration application without any prayer
for condonation of delay and trial court
vide order dated 12.10.1977 has allowed
the restoration application and set aside the
order dated 19.04.1977 without affording
any opportunity to the petitioner. He next
submitted that against the order dated
12.10.1977 revision filed by the petitioner,
has been dismissed without considering the
case of the petitioner. Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the provisions
contained under Section 122-B -(4F) of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, which is as follows:

"Section
122-B(4F):-
Notwithstanding
anything
in
the
foregoing
sub-section,
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 assami
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
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
of this land under Section 195 and it
shall not be necessary for him to institute
a suit for declaration of his rights as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
in that land."

7. Counsel for the petitioner further
submitted
that
application
for
restoration/recall filed by lekhpal is against
the provisions contained under para 128 of
Gaon Sabha Mannual. He placed reliance
upon the judgment reported in 1971 R.D.
115 Azimullah Vs. Gram Sabha.

8. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel as well as counsel for
respondent-gaon
sabha
submitted
that
earlier order of trial court has been recalled
on the ground that petitioner was not found
in possession on the relevant date, as such
no interference is required in the matter and
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. There is no dispute about the fact
that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste
community and was having 1.28 acre of
land on the relevant date as such he was
land less agricultural labourer. According to
the petitioner, he is in possession of
disputed plot since before 30.06.1975, but
in the proceeding initiated under Section
122-B of UPZA & LR Act Lekhpal in his
statement stated that petitioner is in
possession since June 1976. Tehsildar in his
report dated 30.03.1977 mentioned that
from
the
oral
evidence
and
the
documentary evidences adduced in the
proceeding
under
Section
122-B
of
U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, it is established that
petitioner is in possession sine before
30.06.1975 accordingly trial court vide
order dated 19.04.1977 granted benefit of
Section122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
to the petitioner and ordered to record the
petitioner
as
sirdar.
On
the
recall
application of Lekhpal the order of trial
court dated 19.04.1977 has been set aside
vide order dated 12.10.1977 without any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Against the order of trial court dated
12.10.1977 petitioner filed revision which
was sent before Board of Revenue through
reference for allowing the revision but
Board of Revenue has dismissed the
revision and maintained the order of trial
court dated 12.10.1977.

11. Since the trial court while
ordering to record the name of petitioner
has sirdar giving benefit of section-122-B
(4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act has
considered the report of Tehsildar dated
30.03.1977 which was submitted after
considering the statement of lekhpal,
members of Gaon Sabha, petitioners &
revenue records as such the order of trial
court cannot be set aside on the recall
application filed by lekhpal without any
resolution of the Gaon Sabha, the basis of
the restoration application is that he has
stated before the Court that petitioner is in
possession since June 1976. The trial court
as well as Tehsildar has considered the
Statement of the lekhpal as well as the
statement of the members of the gram
sabha so lekhpal has no locus to file
restoration/recall application on the same
ground which was already considered by
the trial court and without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the
order passed on 19.04.1977 has been set
aside and the revision filed by petitioner
has been dismissed, which is arbitrary
approach of the trial court and revisional
court.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC 4102 =
2003 (94) RD 538 Manorey @ Manohar
Vs. Board of Revenue and others
discussed the scope of Section 122-B (4F)
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and has held that
provisions contained under Section 122-B
(4F) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act are
beneficial provision and person is not liable
to eviction if once claim is accepted it is
bounden duty of the revenue authorities to
make necessary entry in the revenue
records. Paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and
12 of the judgment rendered in Manorey
(Supra) are as follows:

"....8.
First,
the
endeavour
should be to analyze and identify the
nature of the right or protection conferred
by sub-Section (4F) of Section 122B. SubSections (1) to (3) and the ancillary
provisions upto sub-Section (4E) deal
inter alia with the procedure for eviction
of unauthorized occupants of land vested
in Gaon Sabha. Sub- Section (4F) carves
out an exception in favour of an
agricultural labourer belonging to a
1 All. Harbar Chamar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
789
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
having land below the ceiling of 3.125
acres. Irrespective of the circumstances in
which such eligible person occupied the
land vested in Gaon Sabha (other than the
land mentioned in Section 132), no action
to evict him shall be taken and moreover,
he shall be deemed to have been admitted
as a Bhumidhar with non transferable
rights over the land, provided he satisfies
the conditions specified in the subSection. According to the findings of the
Sub- Divisional Officer as well as the
appellate authority, the appellant does
satisfy the conditions. If so, two legal
consequences follow. Such occupant of
the land shall not be evicted by taking
recourse to sub-Section (1) to (3) of
Section 122B. It means that the occupant
of the land who satisfies the conditions
under sub-Section (4F) is entitled to
safeguard his possession as against the
Gaon Sabha. The second and more
important right which sub-Section (4F)
confers on him is that he is endowed with
the rights of a Bhumidhar with non
transferable rights. The deeming provision
has been specifically enacted as a measure
of agrarian reform, with a thrust on socioeconomic
justice.
The
statutorily
conferred right of Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights finds its echo in clause
(b) of Section 131. Any person who
acquires the rights of Bhumidhar under
or in accordance with the provisions of the
Act is recognized under Section 131 as
falling within the class of Bhumidhar. The
right acquired or accrued under subSection (4F) is one such right that falls
within the purview of Section 131(b).

9. 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
sub-Section (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 subSection (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
nontransferable 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 person as Bhumidhar with non-
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, sub-Section (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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. In the present case, the trial court
on the basis of the report of Tehsildar dated
30.03.1977 has found that for granting the
benefit of 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act in favour of petitioner all the
ingredients are fulfilled accordingly trial
court has ordered to record the name of
petitioner as sirdar as such lekhpal has no
authority
to
file
restoration/recall
application in violation of para 128 of Gaon
Sabha Manual, the trial court without
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
petitioner has set aside the earlier order by
which petitioner was given benefit of
Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
as such the order of trial court was rightly
ordered to be set aside by Additional
Commissioner through reference to board
1 All. Harbar Chamar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
791
of Revenue but Board of Revenue has
arbitrarily dismissed the revisions filed by
petitioner and maintained the ex parte order
of trial court dated 12.10.1977.

14. Counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of Board of Revenue
reported
in
1971
R.D.
Page-115
Azimullah Vs. Gaon Sabha in which it
has
been
held
that
Goan
Samaj
Litigation cannot be conducted at the
sweet will of member of Gaon Sabha.

15. This Court in the case reported
in 2011 (114) RD 106 Jagdish Pandey
(dead) through LRs. Vs. Additional
Collector
(City)
Gorakhpur
and
others has held that provision of para
128 of Gaon Sabha are binding and
peremptory
in
nature.
Relevant
paragraph
Nos.13
and
14
of
the
judgment are as follows:

"...13. The provisions of Para
131
appear
to
be
binding
and
peremptory in nature. The procedure
therein cannot be bypassed or else it
would lead to a chaos. If any person or
villager is allowed to sign documents
the
same
would
be
not
only
inappropriate but also illegal as such a
person will have no authority to
represent a Gaon Sabha. The said
provision cannot be wished off merely
as directory in view of he language
employed therein.

14. In view of the aforesaid
conclusions drawn, the order impugned
dated
14th
March,
1997
is
unsustainable and is hereby quashed.
Consequently the revision which has
been decided by the order dated 28th
April, 1997 was also an incompetent
order and the same is also set aside."

16. There is one more aspect of the
case that the basis of the restoration/
recall application of the lekhpal was that
petitioner is in possession since June
1976 but there was no dispute that
petitioner belongs to scheduled caste
community and is a landless agricultural
labourer. The cut of date/ relevant date
of possession under Section 122-B (4-F)
of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act has become
13.05.2007
from
30.06.1975.
The
petitioner is in continuous possession
since before 30.06.1975 according to
petitioner as well as on the basis of other
evidence but according to statement of
lekhpal petitioner is in possession since
June 1976. This court has stayed the
dispossession of the petitioner vide
interim
order
dated
12.11.1987/
4.07.1988 and confirmed the interim
order
vide
order
dated
24.07.2012
rejecting the stay vacation application
filed by State, which fully demonstrate
the possession of the petitioner over the
disputed plot since long.

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in
the Manorey (Supra) the impugned
order
dated
10.07.1985
passed
by
respondent
No.1
and
order
dated
12.10.1977 passed by respondent No.3
are liable to be set aside and are hereby
set aside.

18. The writ petition stands
allowed and the order of trial court
dated 19.04.1977 granting benefit of
section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Act in favour of petitioner is hereby
affirmed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 1 ILRA 792
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 68155 of 2006

Prem Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.N. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Ashish
Kumar Srivastav, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri Avinash
Chandra Srivastava

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33 & 39 - Correction of
mistakes in the annual register - title
question,
etc.
cannot
be
gone
into
summary proceedings u/s 33/39 - S. 39
does not empower the Collector to decide
a dispute involving any question of title
(Para 10)

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 198 - power to cancel a lease or
an allotment of land lay only in the
Collector subject to a revision under
Section 333 of the Act - the consolidation
authorities did not have jurisdiction to
decide the question of validity of the lease
or allotment (Para 12)

C. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33 & 39 - Petitioner was
granted lease in the year 1983 - lease
certificate
was
issued,
possession
proceedings were executed in favor of the
petitioner, and a revenue entry was made
in the petitioner's name - No proceeding
for the cancellation of the petitioner's
lease was initiated - neither the State nor
the Gaon Sabha took any action regarding
the lease granted to the petitioner or the
entry of the petitioner - In the year 1997,
the
petitioner
was
declared
as
a
bhumidhar with transferable rights, and a
revision
filed
against
this
order
on
25.2.1997 by a stranger, Gyan Singh, was
dismissed
on
18.4.2022
-
Held
-
petitioner's entry cannot be expunged in a
summary
proceeding,
exercising
jurisdiction under Section 33/39 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act - lease granted in
favor of the petitioner affirmed (Para 8, 9,
10, 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Similesh Kumar Vs Gaon Sabha Uskar,
Ghazipur & ors., 1977 RD 408

2. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs Deputy
Director of Consolidation & ors. 2000 (91) RD
165

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, counsel for
the
petitioner,
standing
counsel
for
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Avinash
Chandra Srivastava, counsel for the Land
Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was granted agricultural lease of
the land which was declared surplus under
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960. The lease was granted
in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983
and on the basis of the lease, the petitioner
was given possession of the allotted land
and the name of the petitioner was
accordingly
recorded
in
the
revenue
records.
The
petitioner
remained
in
possession of the disputed land and his
name was recorded in the revenue records