# Narendra Pal Singh Gahlot v. The Upper

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 899
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31489 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-pal-singh-gahlot-v-the-upper-42202
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act
1961-Section-15(3)
(i)-no
confidence
motion-against
Pramukhmeeting convened before expiry of 30
days-liable to set-a-side-keeping it open
to
hold
no
confidence
meeting
in
accordance with law
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Held: Para 7

There is no dispute in regard to the
dates. Counsel for parties also could not
dispute that requirement of Section
15(3) is mandatory. (See Khursheed
Hussain
Vs.
District
Magistrate
and
Collector, Bareilly, 1992(1) AWC 208;
Mahendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others,
1992(1)
AWC
424;
and,
Chhatrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2003(6) AWC 5635). In view
thereof, the impugned notice cannot be
sustained.
Case law discussed:
1992 (1) AWC 208; 1992 (1) AWC 424; 2003
(6) AWC 5635

## Text

2 All] Smt. Prema Devi V. State of U.P. and others
899
Har Nandan 1963 RD 199 has held that if
some area of a grove is cultivable then the
character of land does not cease to be that
of a grove. The test is to decipher as to
whether the grove was planted prior to
24th January, 1971 or not. The said
decisions have again been followed in the
case of Indrapal Singh vs. Prescribed
Authority reported in 2007 volume 6
AWC Page 5810 and in the case of
Narendra Pal Singh Gahlot vs. The Upper
Commissioner Judicial reported in 2009
volume 1 AWC Page 46. This aspect was
also considered by another learned Single
Judge in the case of Smt. Indu Rani vs.
State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition
No. 4982 of 1988 decided on 17th
September, 2001 where it was held that
the authorities have miscalculated the
number of trees existing in the plot and
then holding that the land is not grove.
The action of the authorities was held to
be unjustified.

20. The presumption therefore,
drawn adverse to the petitioner on the
facts of this case is perverse. It also
cannot be said that if the new saplings
were planted 4 to 5 years before the
inspection, the same had been done with
some ulterior motive. To the contrary the
motive is to restore and revive the grove
over the area that required a re-plantation.

21. The Ceiling Act does not
prohibit or create any disqualification if
new saplings are planted to restore the
status of a grove as this is a natural
process. Old trees once stop bearing fruits
or die out or even new trees or middle
aged trees falling down are contingencies
which are genuine and a tenure holder is
not prohibited from planting new trees in
an old grove. If the interpretation and
presumption adverse to this is accepted
then the status of grove land will
gradually become coterminous with even
a minor decrease in the number of trees,
which is not the intention of the
legislature.

22. In this circumstances none of the
grounds taken either by the Prescribed
Authority or the Appellate Authority for
non-suiting
the
petitioner
can
be
sustained. The impugned order dated
25.2.1992 as affirmed in appeal vide order
dated 31.8.1995 are both quashed.

23. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.22012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31489 of 2012

Smt. Prema Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary
Department & Ors
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kapil Muni Dubey
Sri S.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Vikash Tiwari

U.P. Kshetra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat
Act
1961-Section-15(3)
(i)-no
confidence
motion-against
Pramukhmeeting convened before expiry of 30
days-liable to set-a-side-keeping it open
to
hold
no
confidence
meeting
in
accordance with law
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Held: Para 7

There is no dispute in regard to the
dates. Counsel for parties also could not
dispute that requirement of Section
15(3) is mandatory. (See Khursheed
Hussain
Vs.
District
Magistrate
and
Collector, Bareilly, 1992(1) AWC 208;
Mahendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others,
1992(1)
AWC
424;
and,
Chhatrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2003(6) AWC 5635). In view
thereof, the impugned notice cannot be
sustained.
Case law discussed:
1992 (1) AWC 208; 1992 (1) AWC 424; 2003
(6) AWC 5635

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.M. Dubey and Sri
S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for
respondents; and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi
and Sri Vikas Tiwari, Advocates for
Caveator, namely, Kesar son of Ram
Karan.

2. Learned counsels appearing for
respondents
and
caveator-applicant
stated at the Bar that they do not
propose to file any counter affidavit
since the issue raised is purely a
question of law and they would advance
oral
submissions
which
may
be
considered by the Court. It is in these
circumstances and as requested and
agreed by learned counsel for the
parties, the Court proceed to decide the
matter finally at this stage under the
Rules of this Court on the basis of
record of writ petition.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by
notice dated 18.06.2012 issued by
Collector Jalaun at Orai convening a
meeting for considering a no confidence
motion against petitioner received on
23.05.2012 fixing the date of meeting
on 10.07.2012 by him.

4. The submission is that the date
of meeting having been fixed beyond 30
days from the date of notice for no
confidence received by Collector, such
meeting is in the teeth of Section
15(3)(i) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act, 1961") and is
wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. It is not disputed that petitioner
is an elected Pramukh of Kshettra
Panchayat Kadaura, District Jalaun.
Some Members of Kshettra Panchayat
proposed a no confidence motion
against petitioner and delivered the
notice
upon
Collector,
Jalaun
on
23.05.2012. The Collector issued notice
dated 03.06.2012 convening meeting for
considering no confidence motion on
19.06.2012. Though the notice issued by
Collector was dated 03.06.2012, but in
fact
it
was
issued
for
onward
communication to post office under
registered post on 06.06.2012. The
notice was challenged before this Court
in Writ Petition No. 30211 of 2012 on
the ground that having been placed in
the postal service on 06.06.2012 the
notice convening meeting does not give
15 days of notice as contemplated in
sub-section 3(ii) of Section 15 of Act,
1961. The submission prevailed with
this Court in view of admitted fact with
regard to above dates and the writ
petition was allowed on 14.06.2012 with
liberty to Collector to proceed from that
stage. The Collector thereafter has
issued the impugned letter/notice dated
18.06.2012
convening
meeting
on
10.07.2012.
2 All] Smt. Prema Devi V. State of U.P. and others
901

6. Now the submission is that
under Section 15(3)(i) the meeting must
be convened within a period not later
than 30 days from the date on which the
notice
under
Section
15(2)
was
delivered to Collector. It is submitted
that Collector was served with notice
under Section 15(2) on 23.05.2012 and,
therefore, 30 days would expire on
22.06.2012. Convening meeting for
considering
no
confidence
motion
delivered upon Collector on 23.05.2012
fixing 10.07.2012 is clearly in the teeth
of Section 15(3)(i) and, therefore, the
impugned notice/letter is illegal and
liable to be set aside.

7. There is no dispute in regard to
the dates. Counsel for parties also could
not dispute that requirement of Section
15(3) is mandatory. (See Khursheed
Hussain Vs. District Magistrate and
Collector, Bareilly, 1992(1) AWC 208;
Mahendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 1992(1) AWC 424; and,
Chhatrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2003(6) AWC 5635). In
view thereof, the impugned notice
cannot be sustained.

8. However, learned counsel
appearing
for
respondents
then
submitted that the notice impugned in
this writ petition if set aside, it would be
against public interest inasmuch as the
petitioner would then be contending that
no fresh motion for no confidence can
be initiated for a period of one year and
that would cause serious prejudice to
public at large. In our view this
submission has no force. When a
meeting itself has not been convened
validly despite delivery of notice of no
confidence under sub-section (2) of
Section 15 by the Collector under
Section 15(3), sub-section (12) of
Section 15 would not be attracted in
such a case. It would apply only when
meeting actually is convened but the
motion is not carrying out or the
meeting though convened but for want
of quorum etc. the actual business in the
meeting does not take place. A similar
question came up for consideration
before
the
Division
Bench
in
Khursheed Hussain (supra) and while
considering this very provision, the
Court said, when no meeting is held on
account of some fault on the part of
Collector in convening a meeting,
committing fault in observance of
provisions of sub-section (3), it would
not debar a fresh motion. This Court,
therefore, has no hesitation in holding
that setting aside notice impugned in
this writ petition would not debar the
Members of Kshettra Panchayat in
bringing a fresh motion. In the present
case, in the facts and circumstances, as
discussed above, sub-section (12) of
Section 15 shall not be attracted at all.

9. In view of above discussion and
with the above clarification, the writ
petition, in our view, deserves to be
allowed.

10. The impugned notice dated
18.06.2012 is hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition is allowed, as
directed above.

12. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Court No. 32814 of 2002

Smt. Shanti Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A.Qadeer
Sri Anees Ahmad
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan
Sri R.R. Khan
Sri Shamim Ahmad
Sri V.M. Zaidi
Sri S.M.G. Asgar
Sri S.C. Sinha
Sri A.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Anupam Kulshrestha
Sri Brijesh Yadav
Sri K. Srivastava

Code of Civil Procedure-Order XXII Rule5-scope for determination of legal heirconfined
only
with
purpose
of
determination of proceeding-it shall not
effect the rights of parties-substitution
proceeding
for
asserting
the
legal
representation
for
continuance
of
proceeding-both applicants allowed to
be substituted.

Held: Para 6

The words used "shall proceed with the
suit" in Order XXII Rule 3 is if read with
Rule 5 then it will mean to carry on the
proceeding uptill it reaches to its logical
end.
To
my
mind
the
scope
of
substitution application is limited one i.e.
to prosecute the suits/proceedings and
the order passed on the substitution
application is not binding on the court
which will examine the genuineness of
the documents claiming right over the
property in dispute.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1975 Mad 174; AIR 1988 Mad 117; AIR
1994 Raj 31; Substitution Application No.
42063 of 2008 in Second Appeal No. (282) of
2002 Smt. Pramila Devi Vs. Rajendra Prasad
and others decided on 10.9.2008

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

Re:
-
Civil
Misc.
Substitution
Applications No. 287860 of 2008 and
322897 of 2009 are taken up for orders.

1. Both the applicants claim
themselves
to
be
legal
heir
and
representative of sole petitioner late
Shanti Devi. The applicant of Substitution
Application No. 287860 of 2008 claim
himself to be sole surviving heir of late
Shanti Devi whereas the applicant in
Substitution Application No. 322897 of
2009 claim herself to be daughter of late
Shanti Devi. Both sides dispute status of
each other and their relation to late Shanti
Devi.

2. Sri M.A.Qadeer, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad
appears in Substitution Application No.
287860 of 2008 whereas Sri V.M.Zaidi,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
S.M.G. Asgar, appears in Substitution
Application No. 322897 of 2009.

3. It is not in dispute that late Shanti
Devi had filed writ petition and she has
passed away. In both the applications, the
applications praying for condonation of
delay in filing the substitution application
have been allowed. Both the applications
have been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.