# Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 273
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 6146 of 2020
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44315
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006-Section 128 -The Constitution
of India,1950-Article 226 - applicationcancellation of allotment of Plot -the said
allotment was not in accordance with law as per
procedure prescribed by UPZA Act, 1950petitioner did not claim any legal possession
over
the
disputed
plots-petitioner
is
not
aggrieved as he is not suffering a legal
grievance nor he has wrongly deprived him of
something-as the land was recorded as Banzar
in the revenue records which had vested in the
State Government-eviction of the unauthorized
occupant from the land u/s 122-B of the Act
,1950 is not a condition precedent for allotment
of any land u/s 195, 197, and 198 of the Act,
1950-therefore proceedings for eviction of the
unauthorized occupant would have to be taken
after the allotments had been made u/s 198-A
of the Act.(Para 3 to 20)

The petitioner alleged that the allotment
made in favour of the respondents was made
without
any
resolution
by
the
Land
Management Committee and without any
public
proclamation.
The
petitioner
and
certain other villagers had planted their trees
on the said plot; thus the plot was not vacant
and could not have been allotted u/s 195 of
the Act,1950. (Para 3)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited: -

1.Munshi Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. (2012) 117 RD
615

2.Kalika Prasad & ors. Vs Board of Revenue &
ors. (2009) 106 RD 39

## Text

7 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273
Magistrate to appoint the elected members
to the three member committee. In the
absence of any credible material it would
not be open to contend that the exercise of
discretion by the District Magistrate would
be arbitrary. Once the electorate of the
village has already exercised its franchise
and
elected
members
to
the
Gram
Panchayat and it is from those elected
members that the three member committee
is to be constituted no further ascertainment
of views of all elected members of Gram
Panchayat for the purpose of appointing the
three
member
committee
would
be
required. The exigency which was being
dealt with by the Division Bench, therefore,
is not found to be attracted in the facts of
the present case.

9. Though Mr. Tandon has laid much
emphasis upon following of democratic
principles in appointing the three member
committee but the Court finds that the
scheme contained in the Act duly safeguards
the democratic principles by requiring only
elected members of Gram Panchayat to be
appointed to the three member committee. I
am therefore not inclined to accept the
argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioners.

10. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A273
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.06 2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 6146 of 2020

Krishna Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Madhup Narain Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Azad Rai, Sri Siddharth Saran

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006-Section 128 -The Constitution
of India,1950-Article 226 - applicationcancellation of allotment of Plot -the said
allotment was not in accordance with law as per
procedure prescribed by UPZA Act, 1950petitioner did not claim any legal possession
over
the
disputed
plots-petitioner
is
not
aggrieved as he is not suffering a legal
grievance nor he has wrongly deprived him of
something-as the land was recorded as Banzar
in the revenue records which had vested in the
State Government-eviction of the unauthorized
occupant from the land u/s 122-B of the Act
,1950 is not a condition precedent for allotment
of any land u/s 195, 197, and 198 of the Act,
1950-therefore proceedings for eviction of the
unauthorized occupant would have to be taken
after the allotments had been made u/s 198-A
of the Act.(Para 3 to 20)

The petitioner alleged that the allotment
made in favour of the respondents was made
without
any
resolution
by
the
Land
Management Committee and without any
public
proclamation.
The
petitioner
and
certain other villagers had planted their trees
on the said plot; thus the plot was not vacant
and could not have been allotted u/s 195 of
the Act,1950. (Para 3)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited: -

1.Munshi Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. (2012) 117 RD
615

2.Kalika Prasad & ors. Vs Board of Revenue &
ors. (2009) 106 RD 39

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Madhup Narain Shukla,
counsel for the petitioner, Shri Azad Rai
and Shri Siddharth Saran, counsel for the
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed against the order dated 20.11.2017
passed by the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar
in Case No. D 201717650483 registered at
the instance of the petitioner under Section
128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as Code,
2006) for cancelling the allotment of Plot
No. 64 M (0.0126 Hec.) made in favour of
respondent nos. 5 & 6 as well as against the
order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the
Commissioner,
Basti
Division,
Basti
rejecting the Revision (Case No.851 of
2017
Computerized
Case
No.C20171700851)
registered
under
Section 210 of Code, 2006 against the
order dated dated 20.11.2017.

3. The petitioner had instituted Case
No.
D
201717650483
before
the
Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar alleging that
the allotment made in favour of the
respondents was made without any
resolution by the Land Management
Committee
and
without
any public
proclamation and was, therefore, not in
accordance
with
law
because
the
procedure as prescribed under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act,
1950) and the Rules made thereunder had
not been
followed.
It
was
further
contended by the petitioner that he and
certain other villagers had planted their
trees on the said plot which were still
there and the petitioner and the said
villagers were in possession of the plot
and thus the plot was not vacant and,
therefore, could not have been allotted
under Section 195 of the Act, 1950.

4. During the proceedings in Case No.
D 201717650483, the Tahsildar submitted
a report 26.9.2017 wherein he admitted that
the land was not fit for cultivation and the
plot was in the form of grove. The
Tahsildar denied the allegation of the
petitioner that the allotment was made
without
following
the
Rules.
The
respondents also contested the case of the
petitioner and denied all the pleas made by
the petitioner in his application registering
Case No.D 201717650483.

5. The Collector vide his order dated
20.11.2017
dismissed
Case
No.
D
201717650483.
In
his
order
dated
20.11.2017 the Collector held that the
allotment had been approved on 3.3.2008
because the respondents were scheduled
caste and eligible for allotment under the
Act, 1950. In his order dated 20.11.2017,
the Collector also held that the petitioner
was not an aggrieved person and therefore,
the case registered under Section 128 of the
Code, 2006 was not maintainable. It also
transpires from a reading of the order dated
20.11.2017 that the Collector had himself
personally inspected the plot in presence of
the parties as well as the local Lekhpal and
the Revenue Inspector and found that the
respondents were in possession of the plot
and were using it for agricultural purposes.
The petitioner alleges that the Collector had
not inspected the plots and no spot memo
was prepared by the Collector. However,
because
the
fact
of
inspection
or
preparation of spot memo are not relevant
for a decision of the writ petition, therefore,
the Court is not entering into the said
factual controversy.

6. Against the order passed by the
Collector, the petitioner filed a Revision
before the Commissioner under Section
210 of Code, 2006. A perusal of
7 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
memorandum of revision shows that in the
Revision the petitioner did not raise the
plea that the allotment was made without
any public proclamation or without any
resolution by the Land Management
Committee. In his revision, the petitioner
mainly raised the plea that the respondents
were not landless agricultural labourers and
that the trees had been planted by the
petitioner on the disputed plot, the plot was
in the form of grove and in the possession
of the petitioner and, therefore, could not
be allotted as it was not a vacant land.

7. The Commissioner dismissed the
revision filed by the petitioner vide his
order dated 24.10.2019.

8. While challenging the impugned
orders dated 20.11.2017 and 24.10.2019,
the counsel for the petitioner has argued
that it was evident from the report dated
26.9.2017 filed by the Tahsildar that Plot
No.64
which
was
allotted
to
the
respondents was not a vacant plot because
trees had been planted on it by the
petitioner and other villagers and the plot
was in the nature of grove land and,
therefore, could not be allotted under
Section 195 of the Act, 1950. It was further
argued by the counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner was in possession of the
disputed plots and entitled to retain its
possession till evicted in accordance with
law and was therefore, also entitled to
challenge the allotments made in favour of
respondent nos. 5 & 6. It was argued that
the opinion of the Collector and the
Commissioner that the petitioner was not
an aggrieved person is contrary to law and
therefore, the impugned orders dated
20.11.2017 and 24.10.2019 are liable to be
quashed. In support of his argument, the
counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgments of this Court reported in Munshi
versus State of U.P and others 2012 (117)
RD 615 and Kalika Prasad & others
versus Board of Revenue and others 2009
(106) RD 39.

9. Rebutting the arguments of the
counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for
the respondents have supported the reasons
given
by
the
Collector
and
the
Commissioner in the impugned orders
dated 20.11.2017 and 24.10.2019 and have
argued that the writ petition was liable to
be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions
of the counsel for the parties.

11. In Kalika Prasad (Supra), the
Court in paragraph nos. 10 to 15 of the
report held that only a vacant land can be
allotted under Sections 195 and 197 of the
Act, 1950 and if any person is in
unauthorized occupation of the land, even
then it cannot be allotted without evicting
the unauthroized occupant in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under
Section 122-B of the Act, 1950. It is
relevant to note that in Kalika Prasad
(Supra), the petitioners had pleaded that
they were in possession of the disputed plot
with the permission of the erstwhile
zamindar of the disputed plot. The
judgment
in
Kalika
Prasad
(Supra)
suggests that a land which is physically
occupied
by
any
person,
even
if
unauthorisedly, would not be a vacant land
under Section 195(a) of the Act, 1950 and,
therefore, cannot be allotted till the
authorities get it vacated by resorting to the
procedure prescribed in Section 122-B.

12. The allotments in Kalika Prasad
(Supra) were under Section 122-C(2) of
the Act, 1950 for purposes of building
houses. The allotment in the present case is
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Sections 195 read with Section 198
of the Act, 1950. The judgment in Kalika
Prasad (Supra) does refer to allotments
under Section Sections 195 and 197 of the
Act, 1950 but does not take note of section
198-A of the Act, 1950. A reading of
Section 198-A of the Act, 1950 shows that
the legislature had conceived of a situation
where land allotted to a villager would be
under the unauthorized occupation of some
other person and therefore, proceedings for
eviction of the unauthorized occupant
would have to be taken after the allotments
had been made. Section 198-A prescribes
the
procedure
for
eviction
of
the
unauthorized occupant and for putting in
possession the allottee after allotments have
been made under Sections 195, 197 & 198
of the Act, 1950. Section 198-A empowers
the Assistant Collector to put the allottee in
possession of the allotted land after
evicting the unauthorized occupant and and
for that purpose, use or cause to be used
such force as he considers necessary. The
proceedings are summary in nature and the
order passed by the Assistant Collector is
appealable under Section 198-A (1-B) of
the Act, 1950. The existence of the
aforesaid provision i.e. Section 198-A of
the Act, 1950 clearly indicates that it is not
necessary that the land should not be in
actual physical occupation of any other
person before any allotment is made in
favour of any person under Sections 195,
197 and 198 of the Act, 1950. Eviction of
the unauthorized occupant from the land
under Section 122-B of the Act, 1950 is not
a condition precedent for allotment of any
land under Sections 195, 197 and 198 of
the Act, 1950. Any other interpretation
would make Section 198-A redundant. The
judgment of this Court in Kalika Prasad
(Supra) does not take note of the said
statutory provision. The failure of the Court
in Kalika Prasad (Supra) to notice Section
198-A coupled with the fact that the issue
involved in the said case related to
allotments under Section 122-C of the Act,
1950 and not to allotments under Sections
195 to 198 of the Act, 1950, the judgment
in Kalika Prasad (supra) does not create a
binding precedent for cases relating to
allotments under Sections 195 to 198 of the
Act, 1950.

13. At this stage, it would be relevant
to note that Section 122-D of the Act, 1950
prescribes the procedure for eviction of
unauthorized occupants over land allotted
under Section122-C of the Act. 1950 and
also the procedure to put in possession an
allottee under section 122-C. Section 122D is similar to section 198-A. The Court in
Kalika Prasad (Supra) also did not notice
Section 122-D. However, as the present
writ petition relates to allotments under
Sections 195 to 198 of the Act, 1950 and
not to allotment under Section 122-C,
therefore, any opinion expressed in the
present judgment is restricted to allotments
under Sections 195 to 198 of the Act, 1950.

14. The other argument that was
raised by the counsel for the petitioner was
that the opinion of the Collector and the
Commissioner that the petitioner was not
an aggrieved person is also contrary to the
judgments of this Court reported in Kalika
Prasad (Supra) and Munshi (Supra).

15. A reading of the judgment in
Kalika Prasad (Supra) shows that in the
aforesaid case, the petitioners had pleaded
that they were in possession of the disputed
plots with the permission of the erstwhile
zamindar of the plots and had planted trees
with the permission of Zamindar. A perusal
of the Khatauni of Plot No.64 annexed with
the present writ petition shows that the
disputed plot was recorded as Banzar in the
7 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277
revenue records and therefore, did not settle
with any tenure holder but had vested in the
State Government and consequently in the
Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the Act,
1950. There is nothing on record to show
that any application was filed by the
petitioner either for correction of the
records or any proceedings were instituted
by the petitioner claiming title to the
disputed plots.

16. A perusal of the application filed
by the petitioner registering Case No. D
201717650483 also does not reveal that the
petitioner had claimed his possession over
the plots to be permissive or claimed any
title over the disputed plots. There is
nothing on record to show that the
petitioner claimed any legal possession
over the disputed plots.

17. In Munshi (Supra), this Court
after following the judgments of the
Supreme
Court
held
that
a
person
aggrieved must be a man who had suffered
a legal grievance. Paragraph-16 of the
judgment of this Court in Munshi (Supra)
is relevant for the purpose and is
reproduced below:

"Point No. 2:- Though I have
already held that the order passed by the
learned Member of Board of Revenue is
without jurisdiction but assuming for a
moment that it was within his competence
to maintain the revision and decide the
same, even then learned Member has erred
in cancelling the lease without assigning
any reason. So far as the view taken by the
learned Member of Board of Revenue that
the respondent no. 6 is an aggrieved person
is concerned, controversy in this regard is
no more res integra as the Apex Court as
well as this Court in a catena of decisions,
while considering as to who could be said
to be the "person aggrieved", held that
although
the
meaning
of
expression
"person aggrieved" may vary according to
the context of the Statute and facts of the
case nevertheless normally, a person
aggrieved must be a man who has suffered
a legal grievance; a man against whom a
decision has been pronounced which has
wrongly deprived him of something or
wrongfully
refused
something,
or
wrongfully affected his title to someone.

In
M.S.
Jayaraj
Vs.
Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors.,
(2000) 7 SCC 552, the Supreme Court
considered the matter at length and
placing reliance upon a large number of
its
earlier
judgments
including
the
Chairman, Railway Board & Ors., Vs.
Chandrima Das (Mrs.) & Ors., AIR 2000
SC 988; held that the Court must
examine the issue of locus standi from
all angles and the petitioner should be
asked to disclose as what is the legal
injury suffered by him.

The term "person aggrieved" was
also considered and defined in Re:
Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458, wherein
it has been observed as under :-

"The
words
''person
aggrieved' do not really mean a man who
is disappointed of a benefit which he
might have received if some other order
had been made. A 'person aggrieved' must
be a man who has suffered a legal
grievance, a man against whom a decision
has
been
pronounced
which
has
wrongfully deprived him of something or
wrongfully refused him something or
wrongfully
affected
his
title
to
something."

..................
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

...................

The "person aggrieved" means a
person who is wrongfully deprived of his
entitlement which he is legally entitled to
receive and it does not include any kind of
disappointment or personal inconvenience.
"Person aggrieved" means a person who is
injured or he is adversely affected in a
legal
sense.
(Vide
K.N.
Lakshminarasimaiah Vs. Secretary, Mysore
S.T.A.T., (1966) 2 Mys. L.J. 199).

Whether a person is injured in
strict legal sense, must be determined by
the nature of the injury considering the
facts and circumstances involving in each
case. A fanciful or sentimental grievance
may not be sufficient to confer a standi to
sue upon the individual. There must be
injuria or a legal grievance, as the law can
appreciate and not a stat pro ratione
valuntas reasons.

.......................

........................"
 (emphasis added)

18. The petitioner has not suffered
any legal injury by the allotments and the
allotments do not affect his title over the
plots. Thus, in view of the observations
made by this Court in Munshi (Supra),
there is no illegality in the orders of the
revenue authorities holding that the the
petitioner was not an aggrieved person
and had no right to challenge the
allotments
made
in
favour
of
the
respondents.

19. There is no illegality in the
impugned orders dated 20.11.2017 and
24.10.2019 passed by the Collector and
the Commissioner.

20. The writ petition lacks merit and
is dismissed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A278
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ C No. 7279 of 2006

D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shesh Kumar, Sri Saurabh Srivastava,
Sri T.P. Singh, Sri Navin Sinha.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri D. Awasthi, Sri V.P. Mathur, Sri
Ramendra Pratap Singh.

A. Company Law - Companies Act, 2013 -
The Constitution of India,1950-Article 226
- refund of stamp duties-Petitioners contended
that denial of refund is illegal but could not
dispute that in absence of first proviso,
petitioners were not entitled to seek any
exemption of stamp duty under notification
dated 19.01.2005-Moreover, when exemption
notification dated 19.01.2005 came into force,
second proviso,denying refund was already
existing on the statute book since 10.01. 2005the contention that refund has been denied to
petitioners is discriminatory, is not acceptable.
(Para 36)

Petitioners did not present instrument in
question either before District Magistrate or
General Manager, District Industrial Centre for
authentication and confirmation of facts that
transfer under lease is covered
by the
notification. In absence of compliance of all the
conditions of notification dated 19.01.2005,
Petitioners cannot claim exemption form stamp
duty and no remission is permissible. (Para 14)