# Meena Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 704
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 18588 of 2015
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meena-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50274
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj
Act, 1947- Section 28 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950Section 122-Impugned order-allotment of
Patta in Petitioner's favour cancelled-Revision
dismissed-Review
also
rejected-bar
under
section 28 ( C) of the Act-safeguard to avoid
5 All. Meena Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
705
nepotism-Petitioner unable to produce any
evidence that she is eligible for patta u/s 122 (c
) of Act, 1950-no need to enquire whether
allotment to petitioner being daughter in law of
pradhan is illegal-allotment was not correct-.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Division Bench, hearing any matter in
his/their determination assigned by the
Chief Justice, cannot overstep into the
determination of another Judge sitting
alone or in a Division Bench. If any such
issue or question arises in the matter
including a question in public interest
which is not connected with the matter
before him/them and which in his/their
opinion is necessary to be decided, in
that situation the only option open to the
learned Judge or the Division Bench is to
direct the Registry to place the matter
before the Chief Justice for appropriate
directions or before the appropriate PIL
Bench and, in any case, should not
convert such a writ petition into a PIL.
The
question
is,
thus,
answered
accordingly in the negative."

25. We may also refer to a judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v.
Neeraj Chaubey and others reported in
[(2010) 10 SCC 320]. Paragraph 10 of the
judgment in the said case, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that in case any petition
is filed and the Bench comes to the
conclusion that it involves some issues
relating to Public Interest, the Bench may
not entertain it as a Public Interest
Litigation but the Court has its option to
convert it into a public interest litigation
and ask the Registry to place it before a
Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain
the PIL as per Rules. Para - 10 of the said
judgment is extracted here-in-below:-

"10. In case an application is
filed and the Bench comes to the
conclusion that it involves some issues
relating to Public Interest, the Bench
may not entertain it as a Public Interest
Litigation but the court has its option to
convert it into a public interest litigation
and ask the Registry to place it before a
Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain
the PIL as per the Rules, guidelines or by
the roster fixed by the Chief Justice but
the Bench cannot convert itself into a
PIL and proceed with the matter itself."

26. In view of the aforesaid and
having regard to the conclusion drawn by
the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu (supra), we
direct the Registry to register the PIL as a
separate case and place it before Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for appropriate direction
or before the appropriate PIL Bench.

27. The Special Appeal, thus, stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 704
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-C No. 18588 of 2015

Meena Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Brij Kumar Yadav

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj
Act, 1947- Section 28 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950Section 122-Impugned order-allotment of
Patta in Petitioner's favour cancelled-Revision
dismissed-Review
also
rejected-bar
under
section 28 ( C) of the Act-safeguard to avoid
5 All. Meena Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
705
nepotism-Petitioner unable to produce any
evidence that she is eligible for patta u/s 122 (c
) of Act, 1950-no need to enquire whether
allotment to petitioner being daughter in law of
pradhan is illegal-allotment was not correct-.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vidyawati Vs Gaon Sabha (1982 Law Suit
Allahabad 684),

2. St. Vs Pran Shankar, 1981, (2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The impugned order dated
03.08.1996 was passed by the Additional
Collector, Kanpur Dehat whereby the
allotment of Patta in favour of the
petitioner
was
cancelled.
The
other
impugned order dated 26.05.2003 was
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
Kanpur Division, Kanpur whereby the
Revision filed against the order dated
03.08.1996 was dismissed and the third
impugned order is dated 13.11.2014
whereby the review application filed by the
petitioner
was
also
rejected
by
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division, Kanpur.

2. Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that plot No.183, measuring area
of 0.41, hectare situated in village -
Nadihakhurd, Tehsil - Bilhaur, District -
Kanpur Nagar was allotted to the petitioner
and her name has also been recorded in
revenue
records
on
30.12.1994
as
Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. On
the basis of complaint filed by one Shravan
Kumar for cancellation of Patta, a case was
registered under Section 198(4) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as ''the Act
of 1950') and a notice dated 06.12.1995
was issued to the petitioner. When the
petitioner
opted
not
to
appear,
the
concerned District Collector considered the
report of the Tehsildar wherein it was
mentioned that before the allotment of
Patta,
permission
of
the
concerned
authority was not taken. Therefore, the
Collector passed order dated 03.08.1996
cancelling the said patta.

3. The petitioner moved a Revision
Petition No.272 of 2002, under Section 333
of the Act of 1950, however, the same was
also
dismissed
by
Additional
Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur on
the ground that at the time of allotment of
Patta, the father-in-law of the petitioner
was holding the post of Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat and in terms of Section 28 (C) of
the Uttar Pradesh Panchayti Raj Act 1947
(hereinafter referred as ''the Act of 1947')
before granting Patta to any relative prior
written
permission
of
the
concerned
Collector was required. However, in the
present case, no such permission was taken.
The petitioner had also moved a recall
application on 18.02.2019 to recall the
order dated 26.05.2003 however, the same
was rejected on the ground that order dated
26.05.2003 was passed after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In
these circumstances, the petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the
impugned orders. This Court, vide order
dated 23.04.2015 passed the following
order:-

"Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners,
learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents and Sri Brij Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

Issue notice.
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Notices on behalf of respondent
nos. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the office
of
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel,
whereas Sri Brij Kumar Yadav has put in
appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4.
Therefore, notices need not be served again
to the respondents.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents are granted six weeks time to
file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if
any, may be filed two weeks thereafter. List
thereafter.

As an interim measure, without
prejudice to right and contention of the
parties, till the next date of listing, no third
party right shall be created by the parties
over the land in dispute."

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has not denied the
fact that petitioner's father-in-law was
holding the post of Pradhan at the relevant
time. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that such relationship
is not hit by Section 28 (C) of the Act of
1947 and for this purpose, learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
passed by this Court in Vidyawati versus
Gaon Sabha (1982 Law Suit Allahabad
684), State Vs. Pran Shankar, 1981, (2)
and the relevant part of the judgments are
reproduced hereinafter:-

(i).
Vidyawati
versus
Gaon
Sabha:-

"(5) The learned Counsel argued
that merely because the allottees were the
son and the daughter of the Pradhan, it
could not be said that the Pradhan
acquired or attempted to acquire the lease
for himself or through a partner or
otherwise. I feel that he is right. If the
allotment was in favour of the Pradhan
even indirectly that would be covered by
the Section. In this case the allotment was
in favour of a widowed daughter who had
ceased to be a member of the family of
Pradhan and a major son who could not be
said to be his appendage. Had he been a
minor son or his wife or transaction would
have been benami in some-body's name for
the benefit of the Pradhan, only in that case
the ''permission required under the Section
aforesaid should have been taken. In the
instant case the courts below should have
examined the provisions of section itself
before presuming that the allotment in
favour of the son or daughter of the
Pradhan would be an allotment for the
benefit
of
the
Pradhan
himself.
I
accordingly agree with the learned Counsel
for the Appellant that in the present case
the allotment was not hit by the provisions
of Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act."

(ii). State Vs. Pran Shankar:-

"Nowhere there is a provision in
section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act that
a relative of Member of the L.M.C. will not
have any interest in the property of Gaon
Sabha. The only prohibition was made
against the Member acquiring any interest
in L.M.C. property for himself either
directly or through a partner or otherwise.
If it is proved from the circumstances of
any case that a Member of the L.M.C. has
acquired for himself either directly or
through his partner or through his relative
an interest in any proprty belonging to the
L.M.C. the said acquisition will be treated
as void. But if the member does not acquire
the property for himself either directly or
through partner etc. the lease in respect of
the L.M.C. property will not be cancelled
as irregular. If the legislature had intended
that relatives of Members of the L.M.C.
could not acquire L.M.C. property there
was no hitch for not enacting such a
provision in Section 28-C Panchayat Raj
Act. The absence of such a provision in
5 All. Meena Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
707
Section 28-C Panchayat Raj Act shows that
the legislature never intended that relatives
of Members of the L.M.C. could not
acquire L.M.C. property."

5.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent has
opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and submitted
that the petitioner's father-in-law was Gram
Pradhan at the relevant time when the
allotment of Patta was executed in favour
of the petitioner. Therefore, it is barred
under Section 28 (C) of the Act of 1947 as
it is akin to acquire the interest. The scope
of the Section 28 (C) of the Act of 1947 is
very wide and the word ''otherwise' has
been mentioned which clearly include such
relations. Hence, the impugned orders are
legally correct and there is no infirmity in
the impugned orders. Therefore, this
petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considered the submissions made
at Bar and perused the record. For
reference, Section 28-C of ''the Act of 1947'
is reproduced hereinafter:-

"28-C. Members and officers not
to acquire interest in contract etc., with
Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti - (1) No
member
of office
bearer
of
[Gram
Panchayat] or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti
shall, otherwise than with the permission in
writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire
or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or
agree to receive or continue to have himself
or through a partner or otherwise any
share or interest in any licence, lease, sale
exchange, contract or employment with, by
or on behalf of the Samiti concerned;

Provided that a person shall not
be deemed to acquire or attempt to acquire
or continue to have or stipulate for or
agree to receive any share or interest in
any contract or employment by reason only
of his -

(a) having acquired any interest
before he became a member or office
bearer;

(b) having a share in a joint stock
company which makes the contract; and

(c) having a share or interest in
the occasional sale through the Samiti
concerned of an article in which he
regularly trades upto a value not exceeding
Rs. 50 in any one year.

(2) No court or other authority
shall enforce at the instance of any person
a claim based upon a transaction in
contravention
of
the
provisions
of
subsection (1)."

7. There is no dispute that the
allotment was made in favour of the
petitioner on 30.12.1994 when the fatherin-law of the petitioner was holding the
post of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.
The Patta was cancelled within a short
period by the Additional District Magistrate
Kanpur,
on
the
ground
that
prior
permission was not taken in terms of
Section 28 (C) of the Act of 1947 on
3.8.1996. The said Patta was issued to the
petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a
landless agricultural labour. However, the
petitioner has failed to produce any
document or evidence in support of this
fact even there is no averments in the writ
petition to show that how the petitioner
falls under the category of landless
agriculture labourer.

8. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who
is the daughter-in-law of the Pradhan was
living separately and his father-in-law has
not created any interest in the said land as
well as the relation of daughter-in-law is
not barred by Section 28 (C) of the Act of
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1947. It is further submitted that in the
Vidyawati (supra) wherein it has been held
that in case allotment to widow-daughter,
son or daughter of Pradhan would not be
treated as allotment of the benefit to
himself then such allotment would not be
hit by the provision of Section 28 (C) of the
Act of 1947. In another case of Pran
Shankar (supra) wherein it has been held
that if a member of the Panchayat does not
acquire property for himself either directly
or through partner, it would not be
considered as irregular.

9. Bare perusal of the Section 122 (C)
of the Act of 1950 would show that the
entire provision has been enacted in respect
of allotment of land for housing site for the
members of scheduled castes, scheduled
tribes and agriculture labourer etc. The
purpose of the said Section is to provide
land for housing for person belonging to
poor strata, and for that, entire scheme has
been framed under the said Section. It is a
piece of welfare legislation and first
requirement to become eligible for such
allotment is to fall under the categories
mentioned in the said Section which
include to live below the poverty line ''and
to be' an agriculture labourer. In the present
case there is no evidence that the petitioner
falls under any of the category mentioned
above. The petitioner has failed to produce
any document or evidence to show that she
falls within any of the category mentioned
under Section 122 (C) of the Act of 1950.

10. The bar under Section 28 (C) of
the Act of 1947 is a further safeguard in
order to avoid nepotism and to restrict
members and officers of the Gram
Panchayat to grant favour to their relatives
by allotting Patta even though they are not
eligible for the said Patta. It is further
relevant to note that any Patta allotted to
ineligible person would deprived rightful
claim of an eligible person. In the judgment
passed by this Court in the Vidyawati
(supra) it has been held that even the
allotment for father of the son or daughter
of the Pradhan would not itself be barred
without determination that interest has been
created by the Pradhan for himself,
however, matter was remanded in court
below on the issue of process undertaken
during allotment.

11. In the present case, the petitioner
has not been able to produce any evidence
that she is eligible for Patta under Section 122
(C) of the Act of 1950. Therefore, there is no
need to enquire whether the allotment to the
petitioner being daughter-in-law of Pradhan
is illegal as it would of no consequence. The
allotment to the petitioner was not correct. At
least for the sake of precaution before the
allotment, a request ought to have been made
to the Collector when the petitioner is being
daughter-in-law of Pradhan at the time when
the allotment was made so that an inquiry be
conducted before such allotment as it is the
Collector who is competent authority to grant
permission in such cases. It is to take note
that any illegal allotment would lead to
deprivation of a right of landless labourer
which is against the Scheme of Section 122
(C) of the Act of 1950.

12. In view of the above discussions,
the benefit of the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
granted to the petitioner as the petitioner has
even failed to establish her eligibility for
allotment of land under Section 122 (C) of
the Act of 1950.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
5 All. L.I.C., Gorakhpur & Anr. Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Azamgarh & Anr.
709
(2023) 5 ILRA 709
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 20577 of 2016

L.I.C., Gorakhpur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat, Azamgarh & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prateek J. Nagar, Sri J. Nagar (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Sri J.P. Singh, S.C.

A. Civil Law - Insurance Act, 1938 -
Section 45 - Insurance Claim-Award ofValidity- Corporation repudiated the claim
of respondent on account of the wrong
declaration made in the proposal form-
contract of insurance being one of utmost
good faith, repudiation was rightly done
by the L.I.C. for breach of utmost good
faith and payment of premium by the
brother of respondent and revival of
policies by the L.I.C. has no relevance qua
the repudiation of policy- on account of
misstatement made by the deceased lifeassured in reply to the questions in the
proposal form with regard to his previous
ailment, the life-assured had suppressed
the facts, which were material for him to
disclose-When medical opinion furnished
by the Doctor of Corporation, clearly
establish
that
cause
of
death
had
absolutely no relation with fever suffered
by assured one year ago-therefore, nondisclosure of such a fever cannot be
treated as suppression of material fact
while
deciding
claim
made
by
the
respondent-Thus, the amount deposited
by the Life Insurance Corporation under
the said interim order shall positively be
released in favour of respondent within a
period of two months.(Para 1 to 67)

B. Section 45 of the Insurance Act
authorizes the L.I.C. to repudiate the
claim
on
the
ground
of
fraud,
misrepresentation, or concealment of factSince the contract of insurance is a
contract of utmost good faith, everything
starts from submission of proposal form
issued by the Insurance Company. The
proposal form issued by the L.I.C. contains
a declaration that the statements made in
the form are true and correct to the best
of
the
knowledge
of
the
insured.
Accordingly, the proposer/insured should
not hide any fact in the proposal form. If
the insured gives wrong information in the
proposal form, the contract of insurance is
vitiated.(Para 5)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Om Prakash Agarwal thru L.R. & ors. Vs
Vishan Dayal Rajpoot & anr. (2019) 14 SCC 526

2. Subhash Mahadevasa Habib Vs Nemasa
Ambasa Dharmadas (Dead) by LRs. & ors.
(2007) 13 SCC 650

3. R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shree
Vallabh Glass Works Ltd (1993) 2 SCC 130

4. Appat Krishna Poduval Vs Lakshmi Nathiar &
ors. (1950) AIR (37) Madras 751

5. Kumaran Nambiar Vs Ramunni (1998)AIR 25
Mad. 257

6. Kiran Singh & ors. Vs Chaman Paswan & ors.
(1954) AIR SC 340

7. Koopilan Uneen's daughter Pathumma & ors.
Vs Unee's son Kuntalan Kutty (dead) by LRs
&Ors (1981) AIR SC 1683

8. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs D.L.F. Universal
Ltd. & anr. (2005) AIR SC 4446