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

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1177
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-10-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48682 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kripal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40584
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Chief Standing Counsel
Sri V.K. Singh (S.C.)
 (Gaon Sabha)

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
land
Reform
Act-
Section
122-B
(4-F)-
Settlement
of
Gaon
Sabha
Land-
petitioner
alleging
himself
to
be
scheduled cost candidate- on basis of
compromise the village pradhan-given
the land in question for construction of
'Barat
Ghar'-
No
material
produced
regarding plea of agricultural labour-the
man
possessing
financial
status
to
construct a 'Barat Ghar' cannot be
agricultural
labour-
compromise
between the petitioner and the Gaon
Panchayat-
unsustainable-Court
expressed
its
great
concern-
D.M.
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
concerned
to
initiate
appropriate
proceeding
against
the
concerned
revenue officials.

Held-Para 14, 15,16

The property in question vests in Gaon
Panchayat and is not a private property
of Gram Pradhan. Gram Pradhan is only
custodian of such property. Any property
vested in Gaon Sabha is the property of
entire village community. The order
dated 2.2.2005 by which petitioner was
permitted to make construction of Barat
Ghar
on
the
basis
of
compromise
between
the
petitioner
and
Gram
Pradhan
on
the
property
of
Gaon
Panchayat is wholly unsustainable in
law. This Court is also of the opinion that
if
a
person
is
having
capacity
to
construct Barat Ghar, he cannot be
considered to be a landless agricultural
labourer under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
and is a person of sufficient means.

For
admission
of
a
person
as
a
Bhamidhar under Section 122-B(4-F) of
the Act, the first condition to be satisfied
is that person must be an agricultural
labourer. In order to prove that he is an
agricultural labourer, applicant claiming
benefit under Section 122-B(4-B) of the
Act is required to prove that his main
source
of
livelihood
is
agricultural
labour. For this purpose he shall also
that have to prove the facts giving
details such as where and in whose field
he is working as an agricultural labour as
well as his total income received from
working as an agricultural labour and
other relevant facts. Second important
factum required to be proved is that the
main source of livelihood of a person
claiming benefit under Section 122-B(4F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is agriculture
labour.

In the present case neither there is any
evidence
on
record
to
show
that
petitioner was ever engaged or working
as an agricultural labour or his main
source of livelihood was income from
agricultural labour. The report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 5.7.2003 does
not mention petitioner as an agricultural
labourer on the relevant date could not
be settled in his favour under Section
122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

## Text

4 All] Kripal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1177
(4-A) Any person aggrieved by the
order of the Assistant Collector under
sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may,
within thirty days from the date of such
order prefer, a revision before the
Collector on the grounds mentioned in
clause (a) to (e) of Section 333.

(4-E) No such suit as is referred to in
sub-section (4-D) shall lie against an
order of the Assistant Collector if a
revision is preferred to the Collector
under sub-section (4-A).

It is also found that the subsequent
proceedings in which the impugned
orders were passed had been initiated by
the Pradhan himself individually and not
by the LMC as no such resolution was
duly passed by the LMC as is required by
it to inform the Assistant Collector
concerned in the manner prescribed,
which is only by way of passing a
resolution, the fact that no resolution was
passed by LMC is apparent from the
statement of the Lekhpal contained in the
Judgment of the Assistant Collector dated
31.7.1975
annexure-4
to
the
application/affidavit of the petitioners
dated
10.10.2002,
which
reads
as
follows:-

"izfroknhx.k ds fo:/k ;g eqdnek nk;j djus ds fy;s
dksbZ izLrko is'k ugh gqvk A"

8. The assumption of power to
initiate proceedings by the Tehsildar
again under Section 122-B of the Act in
which
the
impugned
orders
dated
19.9.1984 and 30.6.1984 were passed by
the respondents no.1 and 2 respectively
are wholly without jurisdiction and
manifestly erroneous, wrong, bad and
illegal and liable to be quashed. In view
of the same, the imposition of damages to
the
extent
of
Rs.24,675/-
imposed
arbitrarily by the respondent no.2 without
any basis is also unjust and the petitioners
are not liable to pay the same.

In view of the aforesaid facts,
circumstances, and observations made
hereinabove, the impugned orders dated
19.9.1984 and 30.6.1984 passed by
respondents no.1 and 2 respectively are
hereby quashed. The writ petition is
allowed with costs throughout.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.7.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48682 of 2005

Kripal Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chief Standing Counsel
Sri V.K. Singh (S.C.)
 (Gaon Sabha)

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
land
Reform
Act-
Section
122-B
(4-F)-
Settlement
of
Gaon
Sabha
Land-
petitioner
alleging
himself
to
be
scheduled cost candidate- on basis of
compromise the village pradhan-given
the land in question for construction of
'Barat
Ghar'-
No
material
produced
regarding plea of agricultural labour-the
man
possessing
financial
status
to
construct a 'Barat Ghar' cannot be
agricultural
labour-
compromise
between the petitioner and the Gaon
Panchayat-
unsustainable-Court
expressed
its
great
concern-
D.M.
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
concerned
to
initiate
appropriate
proceeding
against
the
concerned
revenue officials.

Held-Para 14, 15,16

The property in question vests in Gaon
Panchayat and is not a private property
of Gram Pradhan. Gram Pradhan is only
custodian of such property. Any property
vested in Gaon Sabha is the property of
entire village community. The order
dated 2.2.2005 by which petitioner was
permitted to make construction of Barat
Ghar
on
the
basis
of
compromise
between
the
petitioner
and
Gram
Pradhan
on
the
property
of
Gaon
Panchayat is wholly unsustainable in
law. This Court is also of the opinion that
if
a
person
is
having
capacity
to
construct Barat Ghar, he cannot be
considered to be a landless agricultural
labourer under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
and is a person of sufficient means.

For
admission
of
a
person
as
a
Bhamidhar under Section 122-B(4-F) of
the Act, the first condition to be satisfied
is that person must be an agricultural
labourer. In order to prove that he is an
agricultural labourer, applicant claiming
benefit under Section 122-B(4-B) of the
Act is required to prove that his main
source
of
livelihood
is
agricultural
labour. For this purpose he shall also
that have to prove the facts giving
details such as where and in whose field
he is working as an agricultural labour as
well as his total income received from
working as an agricultural labour and
other relevant facts. Second important
factum required to be proved is that the
main source of livelihood of a person
claiming benefit under Section 122-B(4F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is agriculture
labour.

In the present case neither there is any
evidence
on
record
to
show
that
petitioner was ever engaged or working
as an agricultural labour or his main
source of livelihood was income from
agricultural labour. The report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 5.7.2003 does
not mention petitioner as an agricultural
labourer on the relevant date could not
be settled in his favour under Section
122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the judgment and order date
28.9.2004
of
Assistant
Collector,
Bharthana,
District
Etawah
rejecting
petitioner's
application
refusing
to
provide benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) in allotment of land
involved in Suit. A revision preferred by
petitioner against the said order was also
rejected by the judgment dated 14.3.2005.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as
well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
urged that the order passed by the
authorities below are vitiated in law. As
petitioner was an landless agricultural
lobourer belonging to the Scheduled
Caste in actual possession of the land in
dispute on 1st May, 2002, he will acquir
rights under Section 122-B(4-F) of the
Act. He further urged that the findings of
the authorities below to the contrary are
unsustainable in law and the impugned
orders were not passed in accordance with
law.

4. In reply to the same, learned
Standing Counsel urged that the orders
passed by the authorities below were
passed in accordance with law. Petitioner
cannot get any right under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act.
4 All] Kripal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1179
5. In rejoinder learned counsel for
the petitioner referred judgment dated
2.2.2005 of the Sub Divisional Officer,
Bharthana, District Etawah passed on the
basis of some compromise entered into
between Gram Pradhan and petitioner and
urged that under the compromise land in
dispute, total area .37acre, was settled in
favour of petitioner for construction of
Barat Ghar. He also urged that at least
petitioner may be given benefit of Section
122-B(4-F) of the Act for that part of the
land, out of total area of land .74 acre.
Considered the arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel.

6. Benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of
the Act is available to a person who is
landless agriculture labourer belonging to
the category mentioned therein. Section
122-B(4-F) of the Act being reproduced
below for ready reference:-

Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act

"122-B(4-F)
Notwithstanding
anything in the foregoing sub-sections,
where any agricultural labourer belonging
to a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe is
in occupation of any land vested in a
Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being
land mention in Section 132) having
occupied it from before [May 1, 2002],
and the land so occupied together with
land, if any, held by him from before the
said date as Bhumidhar, sirdar or asami,
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 it shall be deemed that he
has admitted as bhumidhar with nontransferable rights of that land under
Section 195.

Explanation-the expression 'agricultural
labourer' shall have the meaning assigned
to it in section 198"

Explanation (1) & (2) to Section 198
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act defines
landless agricultural labourer, same are
being quoted below:-

"Explanation (1) 'landless' refers to
a person who or whose spouse or minor
children held no land as bhumidhar or
asami and also held no land as such
within two years immediately preceding
the date of allotment; and

Explanation
(2)
'agricultural
labourer' means a person whose main
source
of
livelihood
is
agricultural
labour."

7. From perusal of the record and
finding recorded by the authorities below
, it is clear that the land in Plot Nos.
2035/1, area .12 acre, 2037/2, area .12
acre, 2037, area .14 acre, 2039/3, area .34
acre and 2039/4, area .02 acre total .74
acre were recorded as Bhumidhari land in
the name of petitioner's father Sone Lal.
It
is
also
borne
out
that
during
consolidation proceeding by the order
dated 12.12.2002 passed by the Deputy
Director,
Consolidation,
Etawah
petitioner's father allotted other land in
lieu of aforesaid plots and aforesaid plots
were reserved as Bachat land and vested
in the Gaon Panchayat. The land in
dispute was not Bachat land and vested in
Gaon Panchayat on relevant date and
petitioner could not be in possession of
the land in dispute against the law on the
revelant date i.e. 1st May, 2002.
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
8. In view of the above, petitioner
cannot claim any benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act of the Bachat land on 1st
May, 2002, as the land in dispute was not
in possession of petitioner on the relevant
date.

9. It is clear from the record that in
order to grab the property of Gaon Sabha,
some collusive proceedings appears to
have been initiated by the petitioner in
collusion with the revenue authorities on
the basis of the manipulated report of
Revenue Inspector.

10. The authorities below rightly
considered the entire material and rightly
rejected petitioner's claim in land in
dispute on the ground that benefit of
Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act could not
be
granted
to
the
petitioner.
The
Revisional authorities rightly affirmed
said order.

11. The another aspect of the matter
is that petitioner tried to grab the land of
Gaon Panchayat in collusion with the
Gram Pradhan and some concerned
revenue authorities. The property of Gaon
Panchayat is the property of the entire
village community and the Gram Pradhan
and
concerned
Land
Management
Committee are only custodian of such
property and are authorized to manage the
same in accordance with the relevant law
and procedure prescribed.

12. Aims and object of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act clearly shows intention of the
legislature while enacting U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act in the matter of properties vasted
in Gaon Sabha. Relevant portion of Aims
and Object of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is
being quoted below:-

"All lands of common utility, such as
abadi
sites,
pathways,
waste-lands,
forests, fisheries, public well, tanks and
water channels, will be vested in the
village community or the Gaon Samaj
consisting the all the residents of the
village
as
well
as
the
pahikasht
cultivators. The Gaon Panchayat acting on
behalf of the village community has been
interested with wide powers of land
management. This measure which makes
the village a small republic and a cooperative community is intended to
facilitate
economic
and
social
development and to encourage the growth
of social responsibility and community
spirit."

13. From perusal of the order dated
2.2.2002, passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Bharthana it transpires that on the
basis of some compromise entered into
between the Gram Pradhan and the
petitioner,
this
order
was
passed
permitting petitioner to construct Barat
Ghar on plots aforementioned. There is
nothing on record to Barat Ghar on plots
aforementioned. There is nothing on
record to show that compromise was
entered into between the petitioner and
the Gram Pradhan with prior permission
of the contempt authority by any
resolution of the Land Management
Committee.

14. The property in question vests in
Gaon Panchayat and is not a private
property of Gram Pradhan. Gram Pradhan
is only custodian of such property. Any
property vested in Gaon Sabha is the
property of entire village community. The
order dated 2.2.2005 by which petitioner
was permitted to make construction of
Barat Ghar on the basis of compromise
between the petitioner and Gram Pradhan
4 All] Mahesh Chandra Gautam V. State of U.P. and others
1181
on the property of Gaon Panchayat is
wholly unsustainable in law. This Court is
also of the opinion that if a person is
having capacity to construct Barat Ghar,
he cannot be considered to be a landless
agricultural labourer under the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act and is a person of sufficient
means.

15. For admission of a person as a
Bhamidhar under Section 122-B(4-F) of
the Act, the first condition to be satisfied
is that person must be an agricultural
labourer. In order to prove that he is an
agricultural labourer, applicant claiming
benefit under Section 122-B(4-B) of the
Act is required to prove that his main
source of livelihood is agricultural labour.
For this purpose he shall also that have to
prove the facts giving details such as
where and in whose field he is working as
an agricultural labour as well as his total
income received from working as an
agricultural labour and other relevant
facts. Second important factum required
to be proved is that the main source of
livelihood of a person claiming benefit
under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act is agriculture labour.

16. In the present case neither there
is any evidence on record to show that
petitioner was ever engaged or working as
an agricultural labour or his main source
of
livelihood
was
income
from
agricultural labour. The report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 5.7.2003 does
not mention petitioner as an agricultural
labourer on the relevant date could not be
settled in his favour under Section 122B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

17. In view of the above facts where
petitioner tried to usurp the property of
Gaon Panchayat, this court is of the view
that appropriate proceeding be initiated
against the petitioner, Gram Pradhan and
the collusion order were passed in favour
of petitioner. Consequently, the District
Magistrate,
Etawah
shall
initiated
appropriate
proceedings
against
the
concerned
revenue
official/inspector
alongwith
Gram
Pradhan
and
the
petitioner immediately.

With above directions, writ petition
is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Writ Petition No. 50378 of 2005

Mahesh Chandra Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Gautam
Sri Satya Prakash
Sri Amit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Suresh Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
law-Right of deputanist-petitioner, send
on deputation-from Police department to
the Trade Tax Department-for period of
3 years-the Commissioner Trade Tax by
impugned
Order-repatriated
back
to
Police Department-challenged on ground
that
before
expiry
of
period
of
deputation-the Commission Trade Tax
has no authority-held-in absence of
Rules or Regulations in this regard the
borrowing
department
has
every
jurisdiction it can not be saddled with
surplus staff.