# Raja Ram and others v. Smt. Son Kali and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 628
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-07-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33837 of 2000
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-ram-and-others-v-smt-son-kali-and-others-41667
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri V.K. Singh
Sri K.K. Singh
Sri Nisaruddin
Sri B. Pant
Sri N.K. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Mishra
Sri S.K. Kulshrestha
Sri N.K. Sharma
S.C.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act 184 (4)-
Cancellation of Patta-without publication
in News Paper, allotment made in
disregard of order of preference-held
illegal-direction issued to all the District
Magistrate-ensure the advertisement of
Patta in two news papers prior two week
of allotment following the order of
preference-also to follow the procedure
of Section 27 (3) of ceiling Act.

Held: Para 14

Accordingly,
it
is
directed
that
henceforth no allotment of gaon sabha
land under U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the
Rules framed thereunder shall be made
unless date of allotment is advertised in
some such daily newspaper which has
got wide circulation in the area in
question (e.g. Dainik Jagran and Amar
2 All] Raja Ram and others V. Smt. Son Kali and others
629
Ujala) atleast two weeks in advance.
Through
advertisement
applications
from deserving persons with sufficient
details shall be invited and the available
land shall be allotted to all the deserving
applicants. The applications shall be
entered
in
a
register
specifically
maintained for the said purpose. The
receipt of applications must be issued to
the applicant and applications shall be
preserved at least for seven years. This
procedure shall be followed for making
allotment of ceiling land also as under
Section 27 (3) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act allotment is
to be made in accordance with the order
of preference and subject to the limits
specified in Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 363, AIR 2006
SUPREME COURT 1165, AIR 2006 SUPREME
COURT 1806, 2002 (1) A.R.C. 327, 1994 (1)
UPLBEC 461, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551, 2005
(99) RD 823 (F.B.), A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 2854, AIR
1979 SUPREME COURT 1628.

## Text

628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
"In view of the statement of law as
summarised above, the respondents are
guilty
since
the
respondents
have
acquiesced in accepting the retirement
and did not challenge the same in time. If
they would have been vigilant enough,
they could have filed writ petitions as
others did in the matter. Therefore,
whenever it appears that the claimants lost
time or whiled it away such cases, the
court should be very slow in granting the
relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has
also to be taken into consideration the
question of acquiescence or waiver on the
part of the incumbent whether other
parties are going to be prejudiced if the
relief is granted..."

15. Apart from the aforesaid, as
already observed above, any tinkering
with the order would amount to either
modification or as sitting in appeal over
the said judgment. Both are against
judicial discipline.

16. Several judgments have been
placed before the Court to canvass that
the benefit of the judgment rendered in
similarly situated cases can be extended to
the petitioners also but, as already
mentioned, these aspects have to be
examined by that very Division Bench or
the appellate court.

17. For the foregoing reasons, no
relief can be granted to the petitioners and
accordingly writ petitions are dismissed,
subject
to
the
observations
made
hereinabove.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33837 of 2000

Raja Ram and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Son Kali and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kamlesh Mishra
Sri S.C. Verma
Sri Murtaza Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri K.K. Singh
Sri Nisaruddin
Sri B. Pant
Sri N.K. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Mishra
Sri S.K. Kulshrestha
Sri N.K. Sharma
S.C.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act 184 (4)-
Cancellation of Patta-without publication
in News Paper, allotment made in
disregard of order of preference-held
illegal-direction issued to all the District
Magistrate-ensure the advertisement of
Patta in two news papers prior two week
of allotment following the order of
preference-also to follow the procedure
of Section 27 (3) of ceiling Act.

Held: Para 14

Accordingly,
it
is
directed
that
henceforth no allotment of gaon sabha
land under U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the
Rules framed thereunder shall be made
unless date of allotment is advertised in
some such daily newspaper which has
got wide circulation in the area in
question (e.g. Dainik Jagran and Amar
2 All] Raja Ram and others V. Smt. Son Kali and others
629
Ujala) atleast two weeks in advance.
Through
advertisement
applications
from deserving persons with sufficient
details shall be invited and the available
land shall be allotted to all the deserving
applicants. The applications shall be
entered
in
a
register
specifically
maintained for the said purpose. The
receipt of applications must be issued to
the applicant and applications shall be
preserved at least for seven years. This
procedure shall be followed for making
allotment of ceiling land also as under
Section 27 (3) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act allotment is
to be made in accordance with the order
of preference and subject to the limits
specified in Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 363, AIR 2006
SUPREME COURT 1165, AIR 2006 SUPREME
COURT 1806, 2002 (1) A.R.C. 327, 1994 (1)
UPLBEC 461, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551, 2005
(99) RD 823 (F.B.), A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 2854, AIR
1979 SUPREME COURT 1628.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition arises out of
proceedings for cancellation of patta
under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Act.
Gaon
Sabha/Land
Management
Committee
through
resolution
dated
11.12.1992 allotted patta of different
portions of land vested in it to 36 persons
including Smt. Son Kali - respondent
no.1. Petitioner's father late Shri Radhey
Shyam challenged the said order through
application under Section 198 (4) of
U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act on the ground that he
was in possession since before Zamindari
Abolition over the land in dispute hence it
was not vacant and patent grounds that
there was no agenda, no munadi and
provisions of Rule 173 to 176 of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Rules were violated were
also taken. Smt. Son Kali was allotted an
area of 1 bigha 10 biswas out of gaon
sabha plot no.2119/2. In para-5 of the writ
petition it has been stated that the said
plot was in actual cultivatory possession
of late Radhey Shyam - father of the
petitioner since before the abolition of
Zamindari. This allegation is patently
false as at no point of time land in dispute
was entered in the revenue record in the
name of Late Radhey Shyam. Since
Zamindari abolition it was entered as
gaon sabha land. Even if it is assumed
that Radhey Shyam was in possession, his
possession was absolutely unauthorised
and such a person is not entitled to
challenge the allotment proceedings.

3. The case initiated by Radhey
Shaym was registered as case no.9/96-97
Radhey Shyam vs. Son Kali. Collector,
Kanpur Dehat decided the matter on
26.8.1998 and held the allotment in
favour of respondent no.1 - Son Kali to be
valid.
Cancellation
application
was
accordingly dismissed. Respondent no.1
had
also
contended
that
she
had
undergone tubec-tomy operation. The
Collector also found that respondent no.1
was otherwise also entitled for allotment.
The Collector found that agenda was
properly circulated and munadi was also
done and that she was also delivered
possession through dakhalnama. Against
the said order petitioner filed revision
being revision no.46/159 of 1998-99
which was dismissed on 13.7.2000 by
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration) hence this writ petition.

4. Courts below also held that
consolidation had taken place in the
village in question and petitioner did not
file any objection regarding his right over
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
the land in dispute. Lower Revisional
court
further
held
that
petitioner
possessed sufficient land and petitioner
did not belong to scheduled caste and that
apart from petitioner no other person
challenged the allotment which was made
in favour of 36 persons including
respondent no.1. Before the courts below
no such argument was raised that
respondent no.1 or her husband already
possessed sufficient land.

5. The finding recorded by the
courts below are basically findings of fact
requiring no interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction. Petitioner's father's claim
of possession or any sort of right was also
barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act.

6. However, there is one general
aspect of the matter regarding allotment
of gaon sabha land which requires
consideration. Generally complaints are
filed that proceedings of allotment are
done surreptitiously and in-fact residents
of the village in question do not get
information of allotment. The procedure
of munadi through beating of drum as
provided
under
Rules
173
of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Rules
has
become
obsolete. It is extremely difficult if not
impossible to prove as to whether munadi
was done through beating of drum or not.
In every village in Uttar Pradesh several
persons read newspapers. Accordingly, it
is essential that information regarding
allotment shall be published in some such
Hindi newspaper which has got wide
circulation in the area like 'Dainik Jagran'
or 'Amar Ujala' atleast two weeks in
advance so that all those persons who
belong to the eligible category and who
are desirous of getting allotment of gaon
sabha land may apply for the same. In this
manner procedure of allotment will be
completely aboveboard and transparent.

7. In the following authorities even
though in the relevant rules or regulations
publication in the newspaper was not
provided still the courts held that
advertisement/ publication shall be made
in the newspapers.

1(a). AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 363
"B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical
Institute"
1(b).AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT
1165
"Union
Public
Service
Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal
Vaghela"
1(c). AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT
1806
(para30
(Constitutional
Bench
"Secretary,
State
of
Karnataka v. Umadevi"

8. In these cases it has been held that
for appointment to any post under the
government
or
governmental
instrumentality advertisement must be
made in the newspaper.

2. Jagdish vs. D.J. 2002 (1) A.R.C.
327

9. In this case it has been held that
vacancy of a building under Section 14 of
U.P.Urban Building Regulation of letting
rent and Eviction Act 1972 shall be
advertised in the newspaper before
making allotment.

3(a) K.N. Dwivedi Vs. D.I.O.S., 1994 (1)
UPLBEC 461
3.(b)
Radha Raizada vs. Committee
of Management, (1994) 3 UPLBEC
1551
2 All] Raja Ram and others V. Smt. Son Kali and others
631
10. In these cases provision of
notifying a short term vacancy in a
college on the notice board of the college
as
provided
by
IInd
Removal
of
difficulties order under U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board Act
1982 was held to be illegal and violative
of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and it was directed that even for
making appointment against short term
vacancy post shall be advertised in the
newspaper as provided under Ist Removal
of difficulties Order 1981 framed under
the said Act for appointment against the
substantive vacancies.

4. Ram Kumar vs. State 2005 (99)
RD 823 (F.B.)
In this authority it has been held that
fisheries lease in respect of ponds vested
in Gaon sabha under Section 117 of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R Act shall be settled after
due advertisement in the newspapers.
5. A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 2854 State of U.P.
vs. M/s Swadeshi Polytex Ltd
In this case it has been held that for
auctioning the property for realisation of
dues under the provisions of State
Financial
Corporation
Act
or
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act/Rules date and venue
of auction and details of the property
shall be published in the newspapers.

11. We are in right to information
age. Villagers are being taught the use of
computer and internet. Accordingly beat
of drum belongs to an age which has gone
by.

12. Supreme Court in AIR 1979
SUPREME COURT 1628 "Ramana
Dayaram
Shetty
v.
International
Airport Authority of India" has held
that
Government
or
Governmental
agency/instrumentality while extending
largess must act in a reasonable manner
and
not
arbitrarily
providing
full
opportunity to all to make a claim for the
same.

13. Under Section 198(3) it is
permissible to allot gaon sabha land to a
deserving person to a maximum extent of
1.26 hectares or 3.125 acres of land.
However, this is maximum area which
may be allotted . With the increase of
population it is not at all necessary to allot
so much area to one person. Smaller areas
allotted to larger number of people will
serve the public purpose in a better way.

14. Accordingly, it is directed that
henceforth no allotment of gaon sabha
land under U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the
Rules framed thereunder shall be made
unless date of allotment is advertised in
some such daily newspaper which has got
wide circulation in the area in question
(e.g. Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala)
atleast two weeks in advance. Through
advertisement
applications
from
deserving persons with sufficient details
shall be invited and the available land
shall be allotted to all the deserving
applicants. The applications shall be
entered
in
a
register
specifically
maintained for the said purpose. The
receipt of applications must be issued to
the applicant and applications shall be
preserved at least for seven years. This
procedure shall be followed for making
allotment of ceiling land also as under
Section 27 (3) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act allotment is
to be made in accordance with the order
of preference and subject to the limits
specified in Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act.
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
15. With the above observations,
writ petition is disposed of.

16. Office is directed to supply a
copy of this judgemnt free of cost to
learned Chief Standing Counsel for being
circulated to the Secretary concerned and
all the Collectors who shall in turn
circulate the same to all the Sub
Divisional Officers and Pradhans of Gaon
sabhas in their districts.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.65847 of 2008

Ajay Kumar Mishra & others...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri V.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri s.P. Kesarwani, Addl. C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation of entire selection listSelection of Safai Karmi-large number of
irregularities, favoritism and corrupt
practices adopted in interview-being
satisfied with the report entire selection
cancelled-challenge made on ground
petitioner belong to general candidatewhile
bungling
done
under
reserve
category-select list not yet publishedgovernment is not bound to appoint such
candidate-overall
responsibility,
accountability to maintain fairness upon
the
Government-cancellation-held
proper.

Held: Para 14
The select list was not published and
thus the petitioners have not acquired
any rights to be selected. In State of M.P.
Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC
456, the Supreme Court held that even
though selection process was completed
no appointment can be made in the
absence of select list and that the State
Government is not bound to appoint and
select candidates. The judgment in Inder
Preet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006)
11 SCC 356, cited by the petitioners is
also not applicable to the facts of the
case. Here the corrupt practices adopted
by the selection committees were so
mixed up that it is not possible to
separate the tainted from those, who
may be honest and good candidates. It
will thus be in the interest of all
concerned that the selections are held
afresh.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 1 SCC 456, (2006) 11 SCC 356.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Sr.
Advocate assisted by Shri V.D. Shukla for
the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel
appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioners applied for
selections as 'Safai Karmis' in 'general
category', in response to the advertisement
dated 16.6.2008. They were subjected to
cycle test/ safai test and interviews on
different dates and were called to appear
in a test on 4.10.2008 at Vibhuti Narain
Government Inter College, Gyanpur. The
selection process concluded on 4.10.2008.
A final select list was prepared by the
district authorities. On 5.11.2008 the State
Government passed an order, on the
recommendation
of
the
District
Magistrate,
cancelling
the
entire
selections on the complaints made against
the
selection
process.
The
State
Government directed fresh selection to be