# Noor Mohd. & Ors v. Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1784
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-06
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/noor-mohd-ors-v-addl-commissioner-meerut-division-ors-43826
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

under Section 195 of the 1950 Act via a resolution dated 16.6.1984.
Paras 4-5: Details the petitioners' claim of approval by the SDM on 2.7.1984 and their subsequent 20-year
continuous possession and entry in revenue records (Khatauni).
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1785
Paras 6-7: Explains Section 131-B, which converts non-transferable rights to transferable Bhumidhari rights
after 10 years, which the petitioners claim to have achieved.
Paras 8-10: Describes the genesis of the dispute: a 2005 application by non-petitioners (Chajju & others) for
rights declaration, which led to a Gram Pradhan's complaint and an SDM inquiry without notice to the
petitioners.
Paras 11-13: Reviews the 1984 cancellation proceedings which were dismissed in default by 1992. Notes
that despite this history, the SDM in 2006 ordered the names scored out based on a new committee report.
Paras 14-17: Summarizes the petitioners' arguments: violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction by the
SDM (only the Collector has power), and expiration of the 5-year limitation under Section 198(6).
Paras 18-21: Reviews three previous conflicting Single Judge decisions (Brij Pal, Asghar, and Smt.
Satyawati) that led to this Reference.
Paras 22-32: Details the referring Single Judge's disagreement. The Judge argued that because records
were "fabricated" (Form 58-Ka lacked signatures), the proceedings were a nullity/void and required no notice
or limitation.
Paras 33-38: The Division Bench analyzes the evidence. It finds that since files and resolutions existed, the
proceedings were not "fake" but at most "irregular." Long-standing entries (20 years) cannot be deleted
without notice.
Paras 39-42: Addresses Limitation. Holds that while fraud has no limitation, "irregular" or "voidable" acts
must be challenged within a reasonable period, especially after 20 years.
Paras 43-45: Addresses Jurisdiction. Confirms that only the Collector has power to cancel under Sec 198.
The SDM cannot use summary "record correction" powers (Sec 33/39) to bypass this.
Paras 46-50: Highlights the violation of Natural Justice. The Bench holds that the SDM cannot assume fraud
"behind the back" of the tenure holders.
Paras 51-53: Concludes the Reference. The Bench agrees with the earlier views in Brij Pal and Asghar.
Paras 54-57: Final Order. The Bench allows the writ petitions, quashes the impugned orders, and remands
the matter for fresh decision strictly in accordance with law and jurisdiction.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Statutes Referred in this Judgment:

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Sections 131-B, 194, 195, 198)
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (Rules 173, 174, 175, 176)
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (Sections 33, 39)
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

Case Laws Cited:-

Brij Pal and others v. Additional Commissioner and others, Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2009 (Decided
13.5.2011).
Asghar and others v. Additional Commissioner and others, Writ Petition No. 58188 of 2012 (Decided
2.9.2014).
Smt. Satyawati and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division and others, Writ Petition
No. 2307 of 2009 (Decided 1.11.2012).
Inam and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division and others, Writ Petition No. 9837 of
2009 (Decided 1.11.2012).
Ajudh Raj v. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552.
U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 2000 SC 878.
Subhag and another v. Board of Revenue and others, 2011 (6) AWC 5481.
1786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

_Characters 0–39,727 of 53,828. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39727 for what follows._

1784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"At the stage of framing of charge under section 228 Cr.P.C. or while considering
the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or the Judge concerned
to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability, etc. It is at the
trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the
statement, veracity of various documents and is free to take a decision one way or the other."

13. In the present case, there were allegations against the revisionists that the victim was
raped by co-accused Pawan in furtherance of the common intention of the co-accused. The charges
can even be framed only on the basis of strong suspicion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another (Supra).

14. In view of what has been indicated herein above, I find no illegality or impropriety in
the impugned order framing charges against the revisionists.

15. There is no force in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed.

16. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No.- 5651 Of 2009
&
Connected With Other Cases

Noor Mohd. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Shakti Dhar Dube, Shri Javed Habib, Shri Neeraj Dube

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri V.K. Singh

Held -
Paras 1-3: Defines the nature of the Reference and the dispute. Relates to agricultural land leases granted
under Section 195 of the 1950 Act via a resolution dated 16.6.1984.
Paras 4-5: Details the petitioners' claim of approval by the SDM on 2.7.1984 and their subsequent 20-year
continuous possession and entry in revenue records (Khatauni).
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1785
Paras 6-7: Explains Section 131-B, which converts non-transferable rights to transferable Bhumidhari rights
after 10 years, which the petitioners claim to have achieved.
Paras 8-10: Describes the genesis of the dispute: a 2005 application by non-petitioners (Chajju & others) for
rights declaration, which led to a Gram Pradhan's complaint and an SDM inquiry without notice to the
petitioners.
Paras 11-13: Reviews the 1984 cancellation proceedings which were dismissed in default by 1992. Notes
that despite this history, the SDM in 2006 ordered the names scored out based on a new committee report.
Paras 14-17: Summarizes the petitioners' arguments: violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction by the
SDM (only the Collector has power), and expiration of the 5-year limitation under Section 198(6).
Paras 18-21: Reviews three previous conflicting Single Judge decisions (Brij Pal, Asghar, and Smt.
Satyawati) that led to this Reference.
Paras 22-32: Details the referring Single Judge's disagreement. The Judge argued that because records
were "fabricated" (Form 58-Ka lacked signatures), the proceedings were a nullity/void and required no notice
or limitation.
Paras 33-38: The Division Bench analyzes the evidence. It finds that since files and resolutions existed, the
proceedings were not "fake" but at most "irregular." Long-standing entries (20 years) cannot be deleted
without notice.
Paras 39-42: Addresses Limitation. Holds that while fraud has no limitation, "irregular" or "voidable" acts
must be challenged within a reasonable period, especially after 20 years.
Paras 43-45: Addresses Jurisdiction. Confirms that only the Collector has power to cancel under Sec 198.
The SDM cannot use summary "record correction" powers (Sec 33/39) to bypass this.
Paras 46-50: Highlights the violation of Natural Justice. The Bench holds that the SDM cannot assume fraud
"behind the back" of the tenure holders.
Paras 51-53: Concludes the Reference. The Bench agrees with the earlier views in Brij Pal and Asghar.
Paras 54-57: Final Order. The Bench allows the writ petitions, quashes the impugned orders, and remands
the matter for fresh decision strictly in accordance with law and jurisdiction.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Statutes Referred in this Judgment:

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Sections 131-B, 194, 195, 198)
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (Rules 173, 174, 175, 176)
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (Sections 33, 39)
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

Case Laws Cited:-

Brij Pal and others v. Additional Commissioner and others, Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2009 (Decided
13.5.2011).
Asghar and others v. Additional Commissioner and others, Writ Petition No. 58188 of 2012 (Decided
2.9.2014).
Smt. Satyawati and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division and others, Writ Petition
No. 2307 of 2009 (Decided 1.11.2012).
Inam and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division and others, Writ Petition No. 9837 of
2009 (Decided 1.11.2012).
Ajudh Raj v. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552.
U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 2000 SC 878.
Subhag and another v. Board of Revenue and others, 2011 (6) AWC 5481.
1786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. This Reference arises out of the difference of opinion expressed in the order dated
13.11.2014 by the learned Single Judge disagreeing with the final judgments arising out of the
same impugned orders in Writ Petition Nos.3029 of 2009, 9837 of 2009 and 58188 of 2012.

2. The dispute relates to grant of lease of agricultural land under the management of the
Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the then existing Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as '1950 Act'] with the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The provision that allowed such grant of leases under
which the aforesaid proceedings were undertaken is Section 195 of the then 1950 Act. Section 195
of the 1950 Act reads as follows:-

"Section 195. Admission to land.--The Land Management Committee with the
previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of sub-division shall have the right to admit
any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable right to any land (other than land falling in any of
the classes mentioned in Section 132) where--

(a) the land is vacant land,

(b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or

(c) the land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under
Section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act."

3. All the petitioners claim themselves to be allottees under a resolution dated 16.6.1984.
The photostat copy and the typed copy of the said resolution that has been recorded in the
Proceedings Register of the Gaon Sabha have been filed on record and it appears that the said
proceedings were attended and signed by 10-members including the then Gram Pradhan, who was
also the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. It also bears the seal and signature of the
Gram Pradhan of the same date.

4. The aforesaid resolution according to the petitioners was forwarded to the SubDivisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector who vide order dated 2.7.1984 is said to have approved
the said proposal consequent whereto the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records on the
strength of leases so approved and are in continuous possession thereafter. The respective forms of
the leases of some of the petitioners as contemplated under Form 57-Kha and Form 58-Ka have
also been brought on record which are only photostat copies. However, the contention of all the
petitioners is that after approval their names were duly entered in the revenue records, namely,
Khatauni (record of rights) and copies of the relevant Khataunis to evidence the same have also
been filed on record.
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1787
5. The provision of Section 131-B of the 1950 Act came into force w.e.f. 14.1.1995. The
same is extracted hereunder:-

"131-B. Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to become bhumidhar with
transferable rights after ten years - (1) Every person who was a bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and had been such bhumidhar for a period of ten years or more,
shall become a bhumidhar with transferable rights on such commencement.

(2) Every person who is a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on the
commencement referred to in sub-section (1) or becomes a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
after such commencement, shall become bhumidhar with transferable rights on the expiry of period
of ten years from his becoming a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Act, if a person, after
becoming a bhumidhar with transferable rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), Transfers
the land by way of sale, he shall become ineligbile for a lease of any land vested in Gaon Sabha or
the State Government or of surplus land as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960."

6. The petitioners allege that most of them had already been granted full Bhumidhari rights
which is the highest class of tenure under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and therefore, they were not mere lease holders but were tenants of the holdings in their
own rights under the 1950 Act and were recorded as such. For this also, the relevant Khatauni
extracts recording them as Bhumidhars of category 1 (A) has been brought on record. They
continue to be in exclusive uninterrupted cultivatory possession.

7. It appears that some of the allottees out of the whole lot and leaseholders, who are not
petitioners before us and had not been able to gain full rights as Bhumidhars, filed an application
under Section 131-B of the 1950 Act on 12.7.2005 on an allotted public day of grievances before
the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the area making a request for regularizing
their rights as Bhumidhars as other allottees had already been extended the aforesaid benefit
keeping in view the provisions of Section 131-B of the 1950 Act. On this application having been
moved, the same was registered on 23.9.2005 and notices were issued including the Gaon Sabha. It
appears from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.5.2006, which is the bone of
contention between the parties, that the then Gram Pradhan, who was there in 2005, raised
objections on the grant of leases after 20 years and on his objections, the learned District
Government Counsel (Revenue) was called upon to inspect the file and submit his opinion before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

8. Admittedly, none of the petitioners before us in all these three writ petitions were either
appellants or parties to the said proceedings nor were they issued notices. It is only the application
1788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Chajju and others under Section 131-B of the 1950 Act which was being considered together
with the complaint of the Gram Pradhan that was taken up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

9.At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that in the year 1984 itself, the then
Village Up-Pradhan alongwith three others instituted proceedings for cancellation of the leases
before the learned Additional Collector of district Ghaziabad in which a large number of allottees,
who were similarly placed as the petitioners, were made respondents. The petitioners do not appear
to be arrayed therein. The plea raised therein was also the grievance about the irregularity in the
same proceedings of the grant of leases that are also subject matter of these proceedings. A copy of
the plaint has been filed as Annexure - 3 to the supplementary affidavit in Writ Petition No.4416 of
2009. The same was registered and an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Tahsildar by the
Additional Collector, Ghaziabad vide order dated 20.10.1984, on which a report was submitted by
the Tahsildar, and the matter was ultimately taken up in 1989 when an order was passed on
28.7.1989 that upon a perusal of the proceedings, the report is absolutely unclear and therefore, the
entire file was returned back to the Tahsildar for a fresh report. The matter remained pending and a
report was submitted on 27.2.1990 indicating therein that a partial case for cancellation of some of
the leases that was made out and therefore, proceedings under Section 198 (4) deserves to be
undertaken against such allottees. The said report has also been filed on record alongwith the
supplementary affidavit. The proceedings however were dismissed in default on 29.6.1992. A copy
of the said order is on record alongwith the supplementary affidavit. A restoration was filed that
was rejected in 1996. Consequently, those proceedings which were instituted in 1984 were
ultimately consigned in 1996 in the circumstances indicated above. The leases were therefore not
cancelled, even though the proceedings against some of the allottees had been recommended for
cancellation.

10. The Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who proceeded with the present
matter in the year 2005 after twenty years as indicated above, after having received the report by a
3-member committee of revenue officials appointed by him, proceeded to straightaway pass the
order dated 31.5.2006 impugned in the writ petitions accepting the report of the Tahsildar dated
11.5.2006 and issued a direction to score out the names of all the allottees who had obtained the
leases under the said resolution dated 16.6.1984 as approved by the Assistant Collector/SubDivisional Magistrate on 2.7.1984.

11. It is this order dated 31.5.2006 that was challenged by way of revisions and the
revisions were also dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division vide order
dated 14.11.2008 that is also impugned in the writ petitions. Aggrieved the petitioners filed the
present writ petitions contending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.5.2006 was
invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, the order amounting to
cancellation of the leases of the petitioners was without jurisdiction inasmuch as such cancellation
was only permissible in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the 1950 Act where the authority
vested in the Collector of the Districts and not in the Sub-Divisional Officer and thirdly, the
assumption of fakeness on the doubt expressed in the impugned orders is unsustainable inasmuch
as the said conclusion has been arrived at without putting the petitioners to any notice or giving
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1789
them any opportunity to controvert the report dated 11.5.2006 which has been made the basis for
passing of the impugned orders. It is also urged that the learned Additional Commissioner who has
rejected the revision has also ignored these aspects and has simply endorsed the findings recorded
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

12. On the merits of allotment, the contention of Sri Shakti Dhar Dube and Sri Javed
Habib, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that some of the respective forms, namely Form
57-Kha and Form 58-Ka as filed in writ petition No.4416 of 2009 both reflect the signatures of the
competent authority, namely, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee who is the Gram
Pradhan and therefore, the assumption that they are doubtful as available on the records of the file
is a conclusion arrived at without looking into the documents of the petitioners which were never
allowed to be produced before the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Magistrate as no opportunity
was admittedly given by him.

13. They further contend that if the leases could not be cancelled after five years, even if
irregular, as per the provisions of Section 198 (6) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, then in that event, the Assistant Collector could not have assumed the
jurisdiction which he did not possess, that too even beyond the period of limitation as prescribed
under the statute. It is further submitted that once the petitioners have already acquired bhumidhari
rights, then their status of tenancy could not have been altered by a summary order of the SubDivisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector. Consequently, for all the aforesaid reasons, the
assumption of an alleged fake proceeding is without any basis and against the record.

14. It is also submitted that proceedings for cancellation of some allottees were undertaken
but were ultimately dismissed as narrated above. Secondly, the Assistant Collector could not have
travelled beyond the said decision which has also been ignored and therefore, the order is vitiated.

15. Advancing their submissions on the opinion in the order of the learned Single Judge,
learned counsel contend that the learned Single Judge was apprised of the three decisions that have
been referred to in the order dated 13.11.2014 to urge that arising out of the same order, three writ
petitions have already been allowed, but the learned Single Judge has drawn an erroneous
distinction on the consideration of facts by the learned Judges who had delivered the said
judgments and has arrived at a conclusion for referring the matter, which according to the learned
counsel is not in accordance with the record and the reference was uncalled for.

16. For this, all the three judgments have been placed before us. The first judgment is in
Writ Petition No.3029 of 2009, Brij Pal and others Vs. Additional Commissioner and others
decided on 13.5.2011. The writ petition was allowed only on the ground that neither the SubDivisional Officer in the impugned order dated 31.5.2006 nor the learned Additional Commissioner
while confirming the same have correctly appreciated the issue of violation of principles of natural
justice. The writ petition was therefore allowed and the impugned orders, which are the same
impugned orders herein, were quashed with liberty to the authorities to proceed in accordance with
law.
1790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17. The second decision is in Writ Petition No.58188 of 2012, Asghar and others Vs.
Additional Commissioner and others, dated 2.9.2014 which simply follows the decision in the
above mentioned writ petition whereby the writ petition was allowed with liberty to the concerned
authority to proceed against the petitioners afresh in accordance with law.

18. The aforesaid orders however do not record any findings on merit relating to limitation
or otherwise or any of the contentions which have been raised by the petitioners herein.

19. The third decision however dated 1.11.2012 in Writ Petition No.2307 of 2009, Smt.
Satyawati and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division and others and Writ Petition
No.9837 of 2009, Inam and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division and others,
proceeds to record the findings on merits and the writ petitions were allowed quashing the same
impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.5.2006 and the learned Additional
Commissioner in Revision. The said judgment however did not remit the matter back to the
authority concerned as had been done in the other two writ petitions. On merits, the learned Single
Judge who delivered the aforesaid judgment came to the conclusion that if the leases require
cancellation, then the Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter
and the same could have been done only under Section 198 (4) and (5) where the Collector has the
authority and that too even with notice an opportunity to the allottee. The learned Single Judge
further held that the limitation of five years would also have to be taken into account and since the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the learned Additional Commissioner have both failed to advert to
the aforesaid issue, therefore the writ petitions deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned
orders were quashed and the writ petitions were allowed.

20. Having noticed all the three judgments, the learned Single Judge in these writ petitions
deferred with the view taken in the abovementioned judgments on the grounds that have been
narrated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the referring order. The same are extracted hereunder as we have
to answer the aforesaid questions that have been raised by the learned Single Judge and have been
placed before us under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 3.12.2014:-

"6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined
the record. In the judgments passed in the aforementioned writ petitions, it has been held that
proceeding for cancellation of patta is provided under Section 198 (4) of the Act, before the
Collector. Section 198 (5) provides for issue/serve a show cause notice to the allottee before
passing any order in the proceedings for cancellation of patta and Section 198 (6) (b) prescribes
five years period of limitation for issuing show cause notice. In this case, pattas were granted in
the year 1984 and no proceedings for cancellation of patta has been initiated by the Collector
under Section 198 (4) of the Act, within time. Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to cancel
the pattas. The impugned orders were passed by Sub-Divisional Officer without giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners. Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to constitute a committee
for examination of the record and submit report and no reliance could be placed upon the report of
the committee.
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1791
7. I respectfully do not agree with the aforementioned judgments. Reasons for
disagreement are as follows:-

a. So far as the arguments that the petitioners were not given opportunity of
hearing is concern, in these cases, the petitioners themselves filed applications for declaring them
'bhumidhar with transferable right' of the land allotted to them. Report of the committee was
obtained on the own applications of the petitioners. Impugned order was passed on the
applications of the petitioners. As such the allegations that the petitioners were not given
opportunity of hearing are incorrect.

b. Land Management Committee is authorized to admit any person as bhumidhar
with non-transferable right with the previous approval of Assistant Collector in-charge of SubDivision, under Section 195 of the Act. The procedures for allotment of the land by Land
Management Committee are provided under Rules 173 to 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952. Relevant provisions are quoted below:-

"Section 195. Admission to land.--The Land Management Committee with the
previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of sub-division shall have the right to admit
any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable right to any land (other than land falling in any of
the classes mentioned in Section 132) where--

(a) the land is vacant land,

(b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or

(c) the land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under
Section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act."

Rule-173:- Sections 195, 197 and 198 : Admission to land. - Whenever the Land
Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall
announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven
days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the
date on which admission thereto is to be made.

1. Grant of lease - Provisions not followed - In respect of resolution of Gaon
Panchayat only 83 pattas were granted, complaints were made and inquiry conducted. It was found
that pattas were granted on back date and in an irregular manner. Rule 173 of Rules was not
followed. The Parganadhikari found that 25 pattas were granted against the rules to the persons
who were not eligible. Hence, pattas were cancelled.

2. Non-following of Rules - Effect of - As per findings recorded by Additional
Collector, the provisions of Rules 173 and 174 of the Rules, framed under the Act, were not
1792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
followed, neither there was any beat announcement nor list of landless persons was prepared nor
provisions under Rules 174, 175, 176 were followed, hence, such allotment was wholly illegal.

Rule-174:- On the said date, a meeting of the committee shall be held to select
persons for admission to land as sirdar or asami as the case may be. A list of all the persons who
are present and who express their desire to be admitted to the land shall be prepared in Z. A. Form
57-A. The list shall be drawn up separately in respect of the land to be settled to a sirdar and land
to be settled to an asami. The names of the persons shall be arranged in the list in the order of
preference laid down in Section 198.

174-A. [***]

174-AA. [***]

174-B. [***]

Rule-175: - If the number of applicants does not exceed the number of intended to
be settled on the land in respect of which announcement has been made under Rule 173, the
Committee shall examine the eligibility of the person included in the list in Z.A. Form 57-A and
take a decision regarding the plots of land to be settled with each such person. The Committee
shall in the same meeting announce the names of the persons selected for settlement of land and
also the revenue or rent to be fixed for the land proposed to be settled. If the number of applicants
belonging to the categories mentioned in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 198 is
more than the number with whom land is intended to be settled, the list of applicants shall be
placed before a meeting of the residents of the village called by the Land Management Committee
and such of the applicants shall be selected for allotment as are considered to be the most suitable
on merits on the basis of a consensus be arrived at the meeting so convened. If such a consensus
cannot be arrived at, the Land Management Committee shall draw lots to determine the person or
persons with whom the land should be settled.]

[176. - (1) After selecting the person or persons for admission to the land in
accordance with Rule 175, the Committee shall prepare
-
(a) a list of persons so selected in Z.A. Form 57-B,
(b) a certificate of admission to land in Z.A. Form 58, and
(c) a counterpart in Z.A. Form 58-A.

(2) The documents referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be duly
signed by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee but the document referred to in clause
(c) shall be signed by the person so selected for admission of land.

(3) The document referred to in sub-rule (1) shall then be forwarded to the
Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division along with -
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1793
(a) a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee in which the decision
to settle land was taken ; and

(b) a certificate from the Lekhpal concerned to the effect that the particulars of the
land mentioned in the list are correct, and that the admission of the land is in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(4) The Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division shall, on receipt of the
documents, referred to in sub-rule (3) scrutinize the decision taken by the Committee and if he is
satisfied that the decision of the Committee is in accordance with the Act and the rules made
thereunder, he shall record his approval on the list in Z.A. Form 57-B and return the papers to the
Land Management Committee wihtin a week of its receipt from the Chairman with the direction
that the possession may be delivered to the lessees and the report of the mutation be submitted to
the Supervisor Kannongo by the lekhpal immediately after delivery of possession.

(5) If the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub Division finds that the whole or
part of the decision taken by the Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and
Rules, he shall record his disapproval on the list in Z.A. Form 57-B and return the papers to the
Chairman.]

[176-A. (1) On receipt of the list in Z.A. Form 57-B with the order of the Assistant
Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee shall
call the person whose selection for allotment of land has been approved by the Assistant Collector
in-charge of the Sub-Division and shall furnish to him a certificate in Z.A. Form 58 and shall get a
counterpart in Z.A. Form 58-A executed by him. If the land sought to be allotted is a land referred
to in Section 132, the person concerned shall be furnished with a certificate in Z.A. Form 59 and
shall be asked to execute a counterpart in Z.A. Form 59-D :

Provided that no lease shall be made to an asami for a period exceeding five years.

(2) It shall be lawful for the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division to
determine at any time the lease in favour of an asami and upon such determination, the asami shall
not be entitled to any compensation.

(3) Every order of determination of lease under sub-rule (2) shall be effective from
the commencement of the agricultural year following the date of the order.

(4) Where the decision of the Land Management Committee regarding admission
to any land is not approved by the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division, steps will be
taken afresh for settlement of such land in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1)
read with Rules 173 to 176-A. All contracts relating to a lease, license or allotment of land shall be
executed in duplicate. One copy of the contract shall be given to the lessee, licencee or allottee and
the other copy shall be retained by the Land Management Committee for record.]
1794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
c. Thus under Rule 176 (2) ZA Form-57 Kha and ZA Form-58 are required to be
signed by Chairman, Land Management Committee. In this case, Sub-Divisional Officer, after
examining the records relating to allotment of the land to the petitioners, categorically held that
there in no separate ZA Form-57-Kha of the eligible persons. ZA Forms-58-Ka, relating to the
patta granted to eligible persons, available in the record do not contain the signatures of Lekhpal,
Pradhan or any other competent authority. Thus it was found that entire record was suspicious and
fabricated. There was no resolution of Land Management Committee. The papers on the basis of
which it is alleged that pattas were granted to the petitioners are fabricated papers. Gaon Sabha
was contesting the matter.

d. A patta of the land belonging to the Goan Sabha has to be granted according the
procedure prescribed under the law. Fabricated record cannot be regarded as a valid proceeding
for grant of patta nor any right can be conferred on its basis. Section 198 (4) provides for
cancellation of irregular allotment. Fabricated record are no allotment and can be treated as void
documents. Supreme Court in Ajudh Raj v. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600, held that if the order has been
passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eye of
law and it is not necessary to set it aside. In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University,
AIR 2001 SC 2552, held that the expression "void" has several facets. One type of void acts,
transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for
avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can
be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. In U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy.
Director of Consolidation, AIR 2000 SC 878, held that if Goan Sabha had no authority to grant
lease then such a lease was a void document from the inception and, consequently, the jurisdiction
of the Consolidation Authorities was not affected. It can ignore it.

e. Sub-Divisional Officer is competent authority under U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 to make correction in the Revenue Records. Under the Act also he is competent authority to
grant declaration of the right. In this case, Sub-Divisional Officer found that there was no valid
allotments in favour of the petitioners as such they had no right over the land in dispute. The
impugned orders do not suffer from any error. Public property cannot be permitted to be grabbed
by making forgery in the record."

21. The referring order firstly proceeds on the assumption that the documents relating to
allotment of the petitioners were fake and forged. The second ground on which the reference has
been made is that if the documents are fake and forged and are not in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under law, then a fabricated record cannot be treated as a valid proceeding.
Consequently, the proceedings being void ab initio, it is not necessary to give any notice or
opportunity as the proceedings are a nullity. Thirdly, the learned Single Judge has opined that the
Sub-Divisional Officer is the competent authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as it
then existed, to carry out corrections in the revenue records which is relatable to Sections 33/39
thereof. Consequently, if he can correct the record and is also the authority to declare rights, then in
the absence of any valid allotment in favour of the petitioners the orders which were impugned,
namely, 31.5.2006 and that of the Additional Commissioner confirming the same do not suffer
5 All. Noor Mohd. & Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors.

1795
from any error and hence, the allotments can be ignored and consequently, according to him, the
writ petitions deserve to be dismissed,but on account of the said difference as expressed in the
order, the reference has been made to the Division Bench as indicated above.

22. We have considered the submissions raised both by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the state. We have also gone through the
records as also the judgments that have been placed before us. A counter affidavit has been filed by
Sri V. K. Singh on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

23. The first question is with regard to the foundation of the assumption by the learned
Single Judge about the documents that have been found to be allegedly ingenuine or suspicious by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector as expressed in the order dated 31.5.2006.

24. On a perusal thereof, we find that the doubt expressed about the non-availability of
signatures on Form 58-Ka and the non-availability of Form 57-Kha, the petitioners have brought on
record the forms of some of the tenure holders, particularly in Writ Petition No.4416 of 2009 and
on a perusal thereof, we find that the said forms apparently do bear the signatures of the Chairman
of the Land Management Committee, namely, the Gram Pradhan and also its seal.

25. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was sufficient material before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to treat the non-existence of such documents and consequently, any
lease approval in favour of the petitioners was an outcome of such manipulation of fake documents.

26. A counter-affidavit was filed before the learned Single Judge by the Gaon Sabha
reiterating the same but without any supporting documents whereas the petitioners have filed a
supplementary affidavit bringing on record the proceedings of the Gaon Sabha, namely, the
resolution dated 16.6.1984 which is the basis of the grant of the said lease.

27. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate while proceeding to pass the order dated 31.5.2006,
referred to a report dated 11.5.2006. The said report has not been brought on record by the
respondent's counsel with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha or even by the
State. What is also being disputed is the existence of the relevant Zamindari Abolition Rule Forms
as per Rule 176. In our considered opinion, if the said resolution has been approved on 2.7.1984,
then in that event, if there was any allegation of fraud or manipulation then the same ought to have
been examined only after giving an opportunity to the allottees who were in continuous
uninterrupted cultivatory possession for the last 20 years and their names were also recorded in the
revenue records. They were also recorded as Bhumidhars which is the highest class of tenure under
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Such rights having accrued in
their favour could not have been dislodged by summary proceedings of record correction treating
them to be an act that was allegedly on the basis of some fake documents without giving any
opportunity to them.
1796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. The learned Single Judge has also indicated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being
an authority to correct the records was within his jurisdiction to do so. We do not find this inference
to be correct inasmuch as here the issue was the valid grant of lease and declaration of rights under
Section 131-B and not a case instituted for correction of records. If the lease was an outcome of any
fake or fraudulent transaction, then reversing it after 20 years did require the giving of at least a
notice or opportunity to the petitioners who continuously stood recorded in the revenue records for
twenty years. The State contends that the Forms which were issued pursuant to the said resolution
and approval do not bear the signatures of the competent authority. The order of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate narrates the existence of three resolutions of the Gaon Sabha dated 18.5.1984,
16.6.1984, 16.7.1984. It is on the strength of these three resolutions that the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate has drawn an inference about the genuineness and validity of the proceedings of
allotment. These three resolutions are stated to be existing in the report dated 11.5.2006 which in
turn refers to 139 names that were recorded in the resolution dated 18.5.1984, but 140 people were
indicated as eligible on the strength of preparation of Form 57-Kha. The second fact noted is that
the allotment dated 16.6.1984 records 153 names after noting Form 57-Kha that are stated to be not
available on the file. What is available is Form 58-Ka, but 146 of the same do not bear the signature
of either the Lekhpal or Village Pradhan. The resolution dated 16.7.1984 mentions 153 names that
are recorded on 16.6.1984 but refers to Form Ka in favour of 198 persons.

29. In our opinion, if the report indicates the existence of such resolutions then the
proceedings cannot be said to be fake. The proceedings can be wrong, irregular or invalid but they
cannot be said to be fake. Secondly, the impugned order further records that the file appears to have
been affected by termites and is also moistened by water.