# Kishore and others v. Ramrati and

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29913 of 2003
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kishore-and-others-v-ramrati-and-42049
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-practice
of filling fribulus petitions-State Law
Officer
performing
an
mechanical
consideration by permitting to file Writ
Petition-which
resulted
unnecessary
burden upon High Court-engagement of
large strength of State Law Officers and
Special Counsel-public funds can not be
allowed to misused.

Held: Para 9

Such a huge team of Law Officers is
headed by learned Advocate General.
Monthly revenue towards fees of this
magnitude of State Law Officers, only in
the High Court is quite heavy. This Court
have experienced that not only this but
almost in a routine manner, State is also
engaging several private counsels as
Special Counsel, paying them a huge
amount. With this quantum of assistance
of legal brains, still the Government, if
not
able
to
control
frivolous
and
vexatious cases, it is a matter, not only
of serious concern, but condemnation.
There is something basically wrong
which needs be analysed and rectified at
the earliest. The State cannot forget that
being custodian of public funds which
belong to tax payers (people of this

## Text

1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29913 of 2003

Ram Lal and others

... Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner and others

 ... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Kishor Gupta

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

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Section198 (4)-
cancellation of Patta-on ground-non
residing inf village in question-Patta
granted in 1959-after 45 years-No
provision
of
cancellation
on
this
ground-nor any statutory prohibition
from shifting any where else-for either
lease
holder
or
their
heir-heldcancellation order set-a-side.

Held: Para 5

What has been done in the instant case
is pure massacre of justice. Allotment
has been cancelled in the proceedings
initiated after thirty five to forty years.
There is no such requirement that after
allotment neither the allottee nor his
subsequent generations can shift his
(their) residence to another village and
if they do so allotment would be liable
to be cancelled.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned standing counsel
for respondents 1 to 3. Inspite of
sufficient service no one has appeared
on behalf of respondents 4 to 26, the
complainants.

2. The first order challenged
through this writ petition is contained
in Annexure-1 to the writ petition
passed in case no.182 of 1999 under
Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Hari
Kishore and others vs. Ramrati and
others. The order has been passed by
Dr. Rakesh Kumar, District Magistrate,
Mahoba on 23.7.1999. Pattas granted to
the ancestors of the petitioners have
been cancelled on the ground that on
personal inspection by the D.M. and on
inquiry from the villagers it was found
that the allottees were not residing in
the village concerned i.e. Bilrahi.

3. It is shocking to note that in the
impugned order even date of allotment
has not been given. Such an order has
been passed by District Magistrate who
holds a Doctorate degree. Against the
order passed by the D.M. dated
23.7.1999 revision no.20/382 of 199899 was filed by the petitioners.
Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot
Dham, Mandal Banda dismissed the
revision on 24.6.2003 hence this writ
petition.

4. Before the District Magistrate
none of the petitioners had appeared.
The D.M. in his order mentioned that
notices sent to the petitioners returned
with the endorsement that they were
not residents of the village. No further
attempt was made to serve the notices
upon them. In the judgment of the
Additional
Commissioner
it
is
mentioned that petitioners asserted that
pattas were granted in the year 1372
fasli (1964-65 A.D). In para-4 of the
3 All State of U.P.and another V. Sri S.M. Sagar and another
1105
writ petition it has been mentioned that
pattas were granted in July, 1959. In
grounds of Revision filed before the
Additional Commissioner it was stated
that pattas were granted in 1957.
Revision was dismissed on 24.6.2003.
However, one revision i.e. revision
no.197 of 1998-99 filed by one of the
allottees i.e. Smt. Ram Rati against the
same order of the D.M. was allowed by
Additional
Commissioner,
Administration,
Chitrakoot
Dham,
Mandal Banda on 22.9.1999 copy of
which is Annexure-5 to the writ
petition. In the said order it was held
that complaint was filed beyond time.

5. What has been done in the
instant case is pure massacre of justice.
Allotment has been cancelled in the
proceedings initiated after thirty five to
forty
years.
There
is
no
such
requirement that after allotment neither
the
allottee
nor
his
subsequent
generations
can
shift
his
(their)
residence to another village and if they
do so allotment would be liable to be
cancelled.

6. Writ petition is accordingly
allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 03.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 33829 of 1997

State of U.P. and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri S.M. Sagar and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-practice
of filling fribulus petitions-State Law
Officer
performing
an
mechanical
consideration by permitting to file Writ
Petition-which
resulted
unnecessary
burden upon High Court-engagement of
large strength of State Law Officers and
Special Counsel-public funds can not be
allowed to misused.

Held: Para 9

Such a huge team of Law Officers is
headed by learned Advocate General.
Monthly revenue towards fees of this
magnitude of State Law Officers, only in
the High Court is quite heavy. This Court
have experienced that not only this but
almost in a routine manner, State is also
engaging several private counsels as
Special Counsel, paying them a huge
amount. With this quantum of assistance
of legal brains, still the Government, if
not
able
to
control
frivolous
and
vexatious cases, it is a matter, not only
of serious concern, but condemnation.
There is something basically wrong
which needs be analysed and rectified at
the earliest. The State cannot forget that
being custodian of public funds which
belong to tax payers (people of this