# Prem Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 792
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-01
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 68155 of 2006
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49189
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33 & 39 - Correction of
mistakes in the annual register - title
question,
etc.
cannot
be
gone
into
summary proceedings u/s 33/39 - S. 39
does not empower the Collector to decide
a dispute involving any question of title
(Para 10)

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 198 - power to cancel a lease or
an allotment of land lay only in the
Collector subject to a revision under
Section 333 of the Act - the consolidation
authorities did not have jurisdiction to
decide the question of validity of the lease
or allotment (Para 12)

C. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33 & 39 - Petitioner was
granted lease in the year 1983 - lease
certificate
was
issued,
possession
proceedings were executed in favor of the
petitioner, and a revenue entry was made
in the petitioner's name - No proceeding
for the cancellation of the petitioner's
lease was initiated - neither the State nor
the Gaon Sabha took any action regarding
the lease granted to the petitioner or the
entry of the petitioner - In the year 1997,
the
petitioner
was
declared
as
a
bhumidhar with transferable rights, and a
revision
filed
against
this
order
on
25.2.1997 by a stranger, Gyan Singh, was
dismissed
on
18.4.2022
-
Held
-
petitioner's entry cannot be expunged in a
summary
proceeding,
exercising
jurisdiction under Section 33/39 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act - lease granted in
favor of the petitioner affirmed (Para 8, 9,
10, 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 1 ILRA 792
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 68155 of 2006

Prem Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.N. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Ashish
Kumar Srivastav, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri Avinash
Chandra Srivastava

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33 & 39 - Correction of
mistakes in the annual register - title
question,
etc.
cannot
be
gone
into
summary proceedings u/s 33/39 - S. 39
does not empower the Collector to decide
a dispute involving any question of title
(Para 10)

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 198 - power to cancel a lease or
an allotment of land lay only in the
Collector subject to a revision under
Section 333 of the Act - the consolidation
authorities did not have jurisdiction to
decide the question of validity of the lease
or allotment (Para 12)

C. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Sections 33 & 39 - Petitioner was
granted lease in the year 1983 - lease
certificate
was
issued,
possession
proceedings were executed in favor of the
petitioner, and a revenue entry was made
in the petitioner's name - No proceeding
for the cancellation of the petitioner's
lease was initiated - neither the State nor
the Gaon Sabha took any action regarding
the lease granted to the petitioner or the
entry of the petitioner - In the year 1997,
the
petitioner
was
declared
as
a
bhumidhar with transferable rights, and a
revision
filed
against
this
order
on
25.2.1997 by a stranger, Gyan Singh, was
dismissed
on
18.4.2022
-
Held
-
petitioner's entry cannot be expunged in a
summary
proceeding,
exercising
jurisdiction under Section 33/39 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act - lease granted in
favor of the petitioner affirmed (Para 8, 9,
10, 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Similesh Kumar Vs Gaon Sabha Uskar,
Ghazipur & ors., 1977 RD 408

2. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs Deputy
Director of Consolidation & ors. 2000 (91) RD
165

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, counsel for
the
petitioner,
standing
counsel
for
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Avinash
Chandra Srivastava, counsel for the Land
Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was granted agricultural lease of
the land which was declared surplus under
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960. The lease was granted
in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983
and on the basis of the lease, the petitioner
was given possession of the allotted land
and the name of the petitioner was
accordingly
recorded
in
the
revenue
records.
The
petitioner
remained
in
possession of the disputed land and his
name was recorded in the revenue records
1 All. Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
and due to operation of law, petitioner
became bhumidhar with transferable rights
vide order dated 25.2.1997 in respect to
land which was allotted to the petitioner in
the year 1983. One Gyan Singh who has no
locus in the matter, has filed a time barred
revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act against the order dated
25.2.1997, passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer,
declaring
the
petitioner
as
bhumidhar with transferable rights. The
revision was heard by the revisional court
and the same was ultimately dismissed by
the order dated 18.4.2002, although the
observation was made in the same order of
dismissal that the authorities will inquire
the matter with respect to correction of the
revenue entries of the plot in dispute. On
the basis of the order dated 18.4.2002,
proceeding was initiated under Sections
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and
the entry of the petitioner has been
expunged vide order dated 24.7.2002 on
the ground that the lease was not executed
in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
challenged the order dated 24.7.2002 in
revision before the Board of Revenue and
the same was dismissed vide order dated
7.12.2005, hence this writ petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the
writ petition has passed an order dated
2.2.2016 which is as follows:-

"Heard
Sri
K.N.Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.

While assailing the impugned
order, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that once the respondents have
admitted execution of lease in favour of
the petitioner and granted right of
Bhumidhar with transferable right in
year 1997 it was not open for the
respondents to expunge the name of the
petitioner from the revenue record.
Prima facie, I find substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

Matter requires scrutiny.

Issue notice.

Notices on behalf of respondent
nos. 1 to 4 have been accepted by the
office of the learned chief standing
counsel.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner understands to serve a copy of
the writ petition upon Sri Ashish Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no.5 within 48 hours,
therefore, notice need not be issued to
respondent nos. 1 to 5. Let notice be
issued to respondent no.6 by registered
post returnable at an early date. Steps be
taken within two weeks.

The respondents are directed to
file counter affidavit within six weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within
two weeks thereafter. List thereafter
showing the name of Sri Ashish Kumar
Srivastava
as
counsel
for
the
respondent."

4. In pursuance of the order dated
2.2.2016, the gaon sabha has filed counter
affidavit and the petitioner has filed
rejoinder affidavit.

5.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that petitioner was granted
agricultural lease in respect of the plot in
dispute in the year 1983 and no proceeding
for cancellation of petitioner's lease has
been initiated till date. He further submitted
that due to operation of law, petitioner was
declared
bhumidhar
with
transferable
rights. He next submitted that respondent
no.6 who has no authority / locus to
challenge the petitioner's entry, had filed a
revision,
declaring
the
petitioner
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bhumhidhar
with
transferable
rights,
although, the revision was dismissed but
the observations have been made to inquire
the revenue entry. He submitted that on the
basis of the order of the revisional court,
the entry of the petitioner has been
expunged under Section 33/39 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act which is wholly illegal.
He also submitted that the petitioner's lease
has not been cancelled till date rather
petitioner has been declared bhumidhar
with transferable rights, as such, his entry
cannot be expunged in the summary
proceedings. He placed reliance on the
scope of Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, which is as follows:-

33. The annual registers. - (1)
Tire Collector shall maintain the recordof-rights, and for that purpose shall
annually, or at such longer intervals as
the [State Government] may prescribe,
cause to be prepared an amended
[register mentioned in Section 32.]

The [register] so prepared shall
be called the annual register.

[(2) The Collector shall cause to
be recorded in the annual register -

(a) all successions and transfers
in accordance with the provisions of
Section 35; or

(b) other changes that may take
place in respect of any land ; and shall
also correct all errors and omissions in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
Section 39 :

Provided that the power to
record a change under clause (b) shall
not be construed to include the power to
decide a dispute involving any question
of title.]

(3)
[No
such
change
or
transaction shall be recorded without
tire order of the Collector or as
hereinafter provided, of tire Tahsildar or
[the Kanungo].]

[(4) The Collector shall cause to
be prepared and supplied to every
person recorded as bhumidhar, whether
with or without transferable rights,
assami or Government Lessee a Kisan
Bahi (Pass book) which shall contain -

(a) such extract from the
annual register prepared under subsection (1) relating to all holdings of
which he is so recorded (either solely or
jointly with others);

(b) details of grants sanctioned
to him; and

(c) such other particulars as
may be prescribed :

Provided that in the case of
joint holdings it shall be sufficient for the
purpose of this sub-section of Kisan Bahi
(Pass book) is supplied to such one or
more of the recorded co-sharers as may
be prescribed.

(4A) The Kisan Bahi (Pass
book) referred to in sub-section (4) shall
be prepared in such manner and on
payment of such fee, which shall be
realisable as arrears of land revenue, as
may be prescribed.

(5) Every such person shall be
entitled, without payment of any extra
fee, to get any amendment made in the
annual register under sub-section (2)
incorporated in his Kisan bahi (Pass
book.)]

(6) The State Government may
make rules to carry out the purposes of
this section, including, in particular ,
rules, prescribing the mode of reception
in evidence, and of proof in judicial
proceedings, of entries in the [Kisan Bahi
(Pass Book)], and the mode of its revision
and authentication up-to-date and for
issue of duplicate copies thereof, and tire
1 All. Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
fees, if any, to be charged for any of the
said purposes.

(7) In this section, 'prescribed'
means prescribed by rules made by the
State Government.

(8) Nothing in sub-sections (4)
to (7) shall apply in relation to any area
which is either under consolidation
operations or under record operations.

39. Correction of mistakes in the
annual register. - (1) An application for
correction of any error or omission in the
annual register shall be made to the
Tahsildar.

(2) On receiving an application
under sub-section (1) or any error or
omission in the annual register coming to
his knowledge otherwise, the Tahsildar
shall make such inquiry as appears
necessary and then refer the case to the
Collector, who shall dispose it of, after
deciding the dispute in accordance with the
provisions of Section 40.]

[Provided that nothing in this
sub-section shall be construed to empower
the Collector to decide a dispute involving
any question of title.]

(3) The provisions of sub-sections
(1) and (2) shall prevail, notwithstanding
anything contained in the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the
respondent
-
gaon
sabha
Mr. A.C.
Srivastava and the learned standing counsel
submitted that under the impugned order it
has been found that there is nothing
incriminating on record, as such, the lease
appears to be fraudulent. He further
submitted that jurisdiction under Sections
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has
been rightly exercised by courts below, as
such, no interference is required in the
matter and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that petitioner was granted lease in the year
1983 which is very much proved from the
lease certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner, possession proceeding executed
in favour of the petitioner as well as
revenue entry made in favour of the
petitioner. No proceeding for cancellation
of the petitioner's lease has been initiated
either under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or
under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960.

9. Since the petitioner was granted
lease in the year 1983 and no proceeding
for cancellation of the sale deed has been
initiated since 1983 till date, as such,
petitioner's entry cannot be expunged in the
summary proceeding.

10. The scope of Sections 33/39 as
quoted above, fully demonstrates that title
question, etc. cannot be gone into summary
proceedings. In the instant case, petitioner
was declared bhumidhar with transferable
rights in the year 1997, petitioner's entry
cannot be
expunged
in
exercise
of
jurisdiction under Section 33/39 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act. It is also material that
proceeding has been initiated one by Gyan
Singh who has no authority / locus to
challenge the order / entry of the petitioner.
The State or the Gaon Sabha has not
initiated any proceeding in respect to lease
executed in favour of the petitioner or in
respect to entry of petitioner as the gaon
sabha has himself granted lease in favour of
the petitioner in the year 1983.
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. There is one more aspect of the
case that on the basis of lease executed in
favour of the petitioner in the year 1983,
the petitioner became bhumidhar with
transferable
rights
vide
order
dated
25.2.1997 and revision filed against the
order dated 25.2.1997 by stranger Gyan
Singh was dismissed vide order dated
18.4.2022, as such, initiation of summary
proceeding to expunge the petitioner's entry
on the basis of observation made in the
order dated 18.4.2022, dismissing the
revision of the stranger Gyan Singh is
wholly illegal and abuse of process of law.

12. This Court in Full Bench decision,
reported in 1977 RD 408, Similesh Kumar
vs. Gaon Sabha Uskar, Ghazipur and
Others, has held that in view of the
amendments made to Section 198 of the
Act that the power to cancel a lease or an
allotment of land lay only in the Collector
subject to a revision under Section 333 of
the Act and, therefore, the consolidation
authorities did not have jurisdiction to
decide the question of validity of the lease
or allotment.

13. In view of the ratio of law laid
down in Similesh Kumar (supra) the
exercise
of
summary
proceeding
to
expunge the petitioner's entry is wholly
illegal unless the lease exeucuted in favour
of the petitioner is cancelled in accordance
with law.

14. The Full Bench decision of
Similesh
Kumar
(supra)
has
been
distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex court in
the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation
Limited
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and Others, reported in
2000 (91) RD 165, holding that if the lease
in question is void then the lease can be
ignored but the same is not the position in
the instant case as the lease was executed in
favour of petitioners which is very much
proved from the evidence on record and
petitioner
became
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights also on the basis of lease
in question, as such, there is no question
that lease in question is void.

15. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order
dated
7.12.2005,
passed
by
respondent no.2 / Board of Revenue and
the order dated 27.4.2002, passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer are liable to be set
aside and the same are hereby set aside.

16. The writ petition stands
allowed. The lease granted in favour of the
petitioner is hereby affirmed.

17. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 796
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25924 of 2022

Gaurav Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Abhishek Tripathi, Sri Vibhu Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Scope - Power
of issuing the process against person
appears to be guilty of offence - Power,