# Ram Tirath v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-19
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 2686 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-tirath-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51812
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

C.S.C., Mohan Singh

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950-Section 122-B(4-F)-
Impugned order - the respondent no.3 directed
the revenue official concerned to evict the
petitioner-
petitioner
and
his
wife
are
Bhumidhar with transferable rights- On being
found in possession of a part land recorded as
Grade-5 'Banjar' land in the revenue records-
the Lekhpal of the vicinity submitted a report
and
the
respondent
no.3
initiated
the
proceedings under Section 67 of Code of 2006-
Section 122-B(4-F) of Act, 1950- he had
acquired the rights over part of Gata-impugned
orders set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,906 of 45,019. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39906 for what follows._

1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
votes, was not supported by the statement
of the election petitioner himself, as has
already been discussed above. The victory
margin in the present case cannot be said to
be a narrow margin and even if it is taken
to be a narrow margin, it does not provide a
good ground to order a recounting of votes
in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrika
Prasad Yadav (Supra).

30. Election of a returned
candidate can only be set aside on the
proof of illegalities affecting the purity of
election and it cannot be interfered lightly,
on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.

31. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned judgment and order dated
27.02.2024 passed by the District Judge,
Pratapgarh in the Election Petition No. 01
of 2021 filed under Section 27 (2) Uttar
Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, setting aside
election of the petitioner, is hereby
quashed.

32. The matter is remanded to the
District Judge for passing appropriate
orders for preparation of a correct
calculation
sheet
in
light
of
the
observations made in this order and the
finding recorded in the judgment and order
dated 27.02.2024, that in the counting
sheet of Mangraura III, Ward No. 11, the
votes casted in polling booth nos. 64 and
181 - Panchayatghar Nevra A, had also
been included whereas those booths fall
outside the constituency of Mangraura-III
and that the votes casted at Polling booth
Salhipur Kanas - Booth D, had not been
included while preparing the calculationsheet.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ -C No. 2686 of 2024

Ram Tirath ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakshit Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950-Section 122-B(4-F)-
Impugned order - the respondent no.3 directed
the revenue official concerned to evict the
petitioner-
petitioner
and
his
wife
are
Bhumidhar with transferable rights- On being
found in possession of a part land recorded as
Grade-5 'Banjar' land in the revenue records-
the Lekhpal of the vicinity submitted a report
and
the
respondent
no.3
initiated
the
proceedings under Section 67 of Code of 2006-
Section 122-B(4-F) of Act, 1950- he had
acquired the rights over part of Gata-impugned
orders set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Satya Veer and another vs State of U.P. and
others; 2015 SCC Online All 7504

2. Special Appeal no.479 of 2015 (Sushila and
another vs State of U.P. and others)

3. Writ-C no.129 of 2013 (Brahmanand and
others vs State of U.P. and others)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)
4 All. Ram Tirath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1397

1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay
Kumar Singh Tomar, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mohan
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 4/Gram Sabha concerned.

2. Under challenge is the order
dated 15.07.2023 passed by the respondent
no.3-/Tehsildar
(Nyayik),
Mandal-
Ayodhya,
District-
Barabanki,
Tehsil-
Nawabganj, in the proceedings carried out
against the petitioner under Section 67 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short
"Code of 2006") registered as Case No.
9045/2016,
Computerized
Case
No.
T20160412019045 (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram
Tirath).

3.

The
petitioner
has
also
challenged the order dated 05.02.2024
passed by the respondent no.2-Collector,
Ayodhya Mandal, District-Barabanki, in the
Appeal No. 3037/2023, Computerized Case
No. D202304120003037 (Ram Tirath vs.
Gaon Sabha and others) filed under Section
67(5) of the Code of 2006.

4. By the order dated 15.07.2023,
the respondent no.3 directed the revenue
official concerned to evict the petitioner
from Gata No.458/.02960 Hect. (recorded
as 'Banjar').

5. Brief facts, which appears from
the material available on record and are
relevant for the purposes of disposal of the
present petition, are as under:-

(i) That the petitioner namely Ram
Tirath claims that he belongs to Scheduled
Caste community and is an agricultural
labour.
(ii) As per Khatauni of fasli year
1424-1429, the petitioner and his wife are
Bhumidhar with transferable rights of Gata
no.464/0.055 Hect. and Gata no. 551/0.279
Hect. of Khata no.234.
(iii) On being found in possession
of a part land situated in Village-Pyarepur
Saraiya,
Pargan-Pratapganj,
TehsilNawabganj,
District-Barabanki
bearing
Gata no.458 measuring 0.2960 Hect.
recorded as Grade-5 'Banjar' land in the
revenue records, the Lekhpal of the vicinity
submitted a report dated 03.07.2016 and
based upon the same, the respondent no.3
initiated the proceedings under Section 67
of Code of 2006.
(iv) In the proceedings aforesaid
registered as Case No. 9045 of 2016, the
petitioner took the defence based upon
Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in
short "the Act of 1950").
(v) The case set up by the petitioner
on the basis of Section 122-B(4-F) of the
Act of 1950 in the proceedings under
Section 67 of Code of 2006 was rejected by
the respondent no.3 vide impugned order
dated 15.07.2023, the relevant portion of
which is extracted hereinunder:-

"मेरे द्वारा पर्त्राििी पर उपिब्ि साक्ष्यों
एिं विद्वान अधिििा के तकों को सुना गया एिं
अधभिेखीय परीक्षण हकया गया म्जसमें पाया
गया हक प्रश्नगत िाद क्षेर्त्रीय िेखपाि द्वारा भूधम
म्स्र्थत िाम प्यारेपुर सरैया परगना प्रतापगंज
म्जिा बाराबंकी की गार्ा संख्या 458/0.296 िे०
जो हक राजस्ि अधभिेखों में श्रेणी 5 बजंर खाते
की भूधम िै, पर अिैि अध्यासन करने के
फिस्िरूप उ०प्र०राजस्ि संहिता 2006की िारा
67 के तित ररपोर्ज विपक्षी रामतीरर्थ के विरूद्ध
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
प्रस्तुत की गयी। क्षेर्त्रीय िेखपाि की ररपोर्ज के
जिाब में विपक्षी द्वारा मुख्य रूप से इस बात पर
बि हदया गया हक विपक्षी अनुजाधत जाधत का
सदस्य िै एिं उि भूधम उ०प्र०भू० अधिधनयम
की िारा 132 ि राजस्ि संहिता की िारा 77 से
अच्िाहदत निीं िै। प्रश्नगत भूधम पर उसका
कब्जा िगभग कई िषों से चिा आ रिा िै
इसधिए जमींदारी विनाि अधिधनयम की िारा-
122 ख(4-च) के अन्तगजत पार्त्रता की श्रेणी में िै।
इस वबन्दु के समबन्ि मेॉेॉं पर्त्राििी पर
उपिब्ि साक्ष्यों एिं क्षेर्त्रीय िेखपाि के बयान
एिं नाधमका अधिििा द्वारा प्रस्तुत तकों के
आिार पर न्यायािय इस धनष्कषज पर पिुंचता िै
हक प्रश्नगत िाद की कायजिािी उ०प्र०रा० संहिता
2006 की िारा 67 के अन्तगजत प्रचधित िै। इस
कारण विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थजना पर्त्र प्रश्नगत
िाद की कायजिािी से आच्िाहदत न िोने के
कारण प्रार्थजना पर्त्र पोषणनीय न िोने के कारण
धनरस्त िोने योग्य िै। हफर भी प्राकृधतक न्याय
के दृवष्टगत यहद न्यायािय प्रार्थजना पर्त्र विचार
करता भी िै तो उ०प्र०ज०वि० अधिधनयम 1950
की िारा 122ख(4-च) अर्थिा राजस्ि संहिता
2006 की िारा 67-क के व्यिस्र्था के तित
राजस्ि प्राधिकारी ि िाम सभा के धिए यि
वबन्दु आिश्यक िै हक अिैि अधििासी प्रश्नगत
भूधम पर धनिाधसत एिं िास्ति में गरीब व्यवि
िोना चाहिए इसके समबन्ि में पर्त्राििी में
संिग्न खतौनी की फसिी िषज 1424-1429 की
खाता संख्या 234 की गार्ा संख्या 464/0.055
िे० ि गार्ा संख्या 551/0.279िे० से स्पष्ट िै हक
अधतिमणकताज स्ियं ि उसकी पत्नी संिमणीय
भूधमिर के रूप में दजज अधभिेख िै यि विधि
मानिीय दृवष्ट के तित केिि असिाय एिं
मजबूर धनराधश्रत व्यवियों के उत्र्थान के धनयधत
से प्रािब्ि हकया गया िै यहद न्यायािय ऐसे
पररम्स्र्थधतयों में भी िाभ प्रदान करता िै तो िि
समाज के धिए आदतन सरकारी भूधमयों पर
अधतिमण करने के धिए प्रेररत करने का स्त्रोत
िोगा। जिां तक प्रश्नगत िाद में विपक्षी का
सरकारी भूधम पर कब्जा िोने का प्रश्न िै तो
विपक्षी द्वारा स्ियं अन्तगजत िारा 122ख (4-च)
के तित प्रस्तुत प्रार्थजना पर्त्र प्रस्तुत करके यि
स्िीकार कर धिया गया हक िाम समाज की
भूधम िै पर उसका कब्जा ि दखि िै। इस प्रकार
उपरोि वबन्दुओं के आिोक में विपक्षी
रामतीरर्थ पुर्त्र रामनार्थ द्वारा िाम समाज की
भूधम पर अिैि कब्जा करने के फिस्िरूप
क्षेर्त्रीय िेखपाि द्वारा प्रस्तुत ररपोर्ज हदनांक
03.07.2016 की पुवष्ट करते िुए विपक्षी के विरूद्ध
प्रश्नगत से बेदखिी एिं क्षधतपूधतज का आदेि
पाररत हकया जाना न्यायोधचत प्रतीत िोता िै।
आदेि
अतः िाम प्यारेपुर सरैया परगना
प्रतापगंज तिसीि निाबगंज म्जिा बाराबंकी
की गार्ा संख्या 458/0.296 िे० राजस्ि
अधभिेखों में श्रेणी 5-3-ड (बंजर) से विपक्षी
रामतीरर्थ पुर्त्र रामनार्थ को बेदखि हकया जाता
िै तर्था अनाधिकार अधतिमण के धिए विपक्षी
रामतीरर्थ पुर्त्र रामनार्थ धनिासी:- िाम प्यारेपुर
सरैया परगना प्रतापगंज तिसीि निाबगंज
म्जिा बाराबंकी पर 7, 10, 400-00 (सात िाख
दस िजार चार सौ रूपये मार्त्र) क्षधतपूधतज
4 All. Ram Tirath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1399
आरोवपत हकया जाता िै। आदेि की प्रधत
िेखपाि को धनःिुलक उपिब्ि करायी जाये।
िेखपाि को धनदेधित हकया जाता िै हक
प्रधतिादी को िादीय भूधम से बेदखि करते िुए
15 हदन के अन्दर आर०सी० प्रपर्त्र 67क ि 67ख
न्यायािय में प्रस्तुत करें। आर०सी० प्रपर्त्र 67 क
ि 67ख प्राप्त िोने पर आर०सी० प्रपर्त्र 67ग जारी
िो। िसूिी ि बेदखिी के उपरान्त पर्त्राििी
दाम्खि दफ्तर िो।"
(vi) The appellate authority i.e
respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated
05.02.2024 passed in Appeal No. 3037 of
2023 filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 15.07.2023 dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the order dated
15.07.2023 passed by respondent no.3. The
relevant portion of the order dated
05.02.2024 reads as under:-
"मैने उभय पक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत तकों
सहित अपीि पर्त्राििी एिं अिर न्यायािय की
पर्त्राििी एिं प्रस्तरिार आख्या का समयक
अििोकन
एिं
पररिीिन
हकया।
अिर
न्यायािय की पर्त्राििी पर उपिब्ि िेखपाि
प्रसूचना हदनांक 03.07.2016 के अििोकन से
पाया जाता िै हक िाम प्यारेपुर सरैंया परगना
प्रतापगंज तिसीि निाबगंज की गार्ा संख्या
458/0.296 िे० जो िाम सभा श्रेणी-5 बंजर खाते
की भूधम िै म्जसपर िगभग 10 िषों से
अपीिार्थी / विपक्षी द्वारा अिैि रूप से खेती की
जा रिी िै, म्जसके सहकजि रेर् के अनुसार गॉि
सभा समपवत्त को रू०- 14, 20, 800-00की क्षधत
पिुंची। िेखपाि प्रसूचना से सिमत िोकर
तिसीिदार निाबगंज द्वारा िाद पंजीकृत कर
नोहर्स धनगजत की गयी। अपीिार्थी/ विपक्षी की
ओर से अिर न्यायािय के समक्ष आपवत्त
प्रस्तुत की गयी। अपीिार्थी/ विपक्षी द्वारा अिर
न्यायािय के समक्ष नोहर्स के विरूद्ध आपवत्त में
मुख्य रूप से यि कर्थन हकया गया हक काफी
मेिनत करके िगभग 20 िषज से उि भूधम पर
कृवष कायज करता चिा आ रिा िै। आपवत्तकताज
अनुसूधचत जाधत पासी का सदस्य िै और
प्रश्नगत नोहर्स में इंधगत गार्ा संख्या 458का
असंिमणीय
भूधमिर
अन्तगजत
िारा
122ख(4च) जमींदारी विनाि अधिधनयम के
अन्तगजत िो चुका िै। जमींदारी विनाि
अधिधनयम
की
िारा
122ख(
4च)
का
प्रधतस्र्थापन हदनांक 16.07.1975 से प्रभािी
करते िुये गाॉ ि सभा की 117जमींदारी विनाि
अधिधनयम के अन्तगजत आने िािी भूधमयों के
बाबत् प्रख्यावपत हकया गया िै हक 30जून
1975के पूिज अगर जमींदारी विनाि अधिधनयम
की िारा 177 के अन्तगजत आने िािी हकसी
भूधम पर कोई अनुसूधचत जाधत/ अनुसूधचत
जनजाधत का कोई व्यवि कावबज अर्थाजत्
अध्याधसत िै तो उस भूधम का असंिमणीय
भूधमिर मान धिया जायेगा, उसे गॉि सभा या
किेक्र्र बेदखि निीं कर सकेगा। कािान्तर में
जमींदारी विनाि अधिधनयम की िारा 122
ख(4च) में संिोिन करते िुये उत्तर प्रदेि
अधिधनयम संख्या 31िषज 2007 द्वारा यि
प्रधतस्र्थावपत हकया गया हक संगत धतधर्थ
01.05.2002 को बढाकर 13.05.2007 कर हदया
गया िै। इस प्रकार अनुसूधचत जाधत एिं
अनुसूधचत जनजाधत के व्यवि जो 13 मई 2007
के पूिज कावबज िै उन्िें अब बेदखि निीं हकया
1400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
जायेगा। अिर न्यायािय द्वारा अपने पाररत
आदेि हदनांक 15.07.2023 में पर्त्राििी पर
उपिब्ि साक्ष्यों एिं विद्वान अधिििा के तकों
को
सुनने
के
उपरान्त
अधभिेखीय
परीक्षणोंपरान्त पाया गया हक विपक्षी द्वारा
गार्ा संख्या 458/0.296 िे० जो राजस्ि
अधभिेखों में बंजर खाते की भूधम िै, म्जसपर
विपक्षी द्वारा अिैि अध्यासन हकया गया,
म्जसके समबन्ि में क्षेर्त्रीय िेखपाि द्वारा
ररपोर्ज प्रस्तुत की गयी। अिर न्यायािय द्वारा
विपक्षी की आपवत्त में हकये गये कर्थनो के िम
में यि भी वििेचना की गयी हक उ०प्र० ज०वि०
अधिधनयम 1950 की िारा 122ख(4च) अर्थिा
राजस्ि संहिता 2006 की िारा 67-क की
व्यिस्र्था के तित राजस्ि प्राधिकारी द्वारा िाम
सभा के धिये यि वबन्दु आिश्यक िै हक अिैि
अधििासी प्रश्नगत भूधम पर धनिाधसत एिं
िास्ति में गरीब व्यवि िोना चाहिये। इस
समबन्ि में पर्त्राििी पर उपिब्ि अधभिेखीय
साक्ष्य के रूप में उद्धरण खतौनी फसिी िषज
1424-1429 की खाता 234 की गार्ा संख्या
464/0.55 िे० ि गार्ा संख्या 551/0.297िे०
अधतिमणी (अपीिार्थी) स्ियं ि उसकी पत्नी
संिमणीय भूधमिर के रूप में दजज अधभिेख
िै। इस प्रकार स्पष्ट िै हक अिर न्यायािय द्वारा
उभय पक्षों को सुनने एिं अधभिेखीय साक्ष्यों
के आिार पर विधि सममत रूप से आदेि
हदनांक 15.07.2023 पाररत हकया गया िै,
म्जसमें
हकसी
प्रकार
के
िस्तक्षेप
की
आिश्यकता निीं िै। अतएिं अपीिार्थी द्वारा
प्रस्तुत अपीि बििीन एिं धनरािार तथ्यों पर
आिाररत िोने के कारण धनरस्त हकये जाने
योग्य िै।
अतएिं उपरोि की गयी वििेचना के
आिोक में अिर न्यायािय द्वारा पाररत आदेि
हदनांक 15.07.2023 में हकसी प्रकार के
िस्ताक्षेप की आिश्यकता न पाये जाने के
कारण अपीिार्थी राम तीरर्थ पुर्त्र राम नार्थ
धनिासी िाम प्यारेपुर सरैंया परगना प्रतापगंज
तिसीि निाबगंज म्जिा बाराबंकी की अपीि
हदनांहकत 05.08.2023 धनरस्त की जाती िै।
आदेि की प्रमाम्णत प्रधत के सार्थ अिर
न्यायािय की पर्त्राििी इस धनदेि के सार्थ
प्रेवषत हक िि अपने पाररत आदेि हदनांक
15.07.2023 का विधि अनुसार हियान्िन
सुधनम्श्चत करायें। बाद आिश्यक कायजिािी
अपीि पर्त्राििी संधचत राजस्ि अधभिेखागार
की जाय।"

6. Impeaching the impugned orders
dated 05.02.2024 and 15.07.2023, it is
stated that in rejecting the plea based upon
Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950
taken by the petitioner, the respondent
nos.2 and 3 erred in law and facts both and
as such interference and protection of this
Court is required.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel
stated that the impugned orders are not
liable to be interfered by the Court being
reasoned and speaking orders as also that
under Section 67A of the Code, 2006, the
'house sites' can be settled/protected and the
petitioner is in possession of land recorded
as 'Banjar' and he and his wife are recorded
tenure holder of Gata no.464/0.055 Hect.
and Gata no.551/0.297 Hect.
4 All. Ram Tirath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1401
8. Considered the aforesaid and
perused the record.

9. Issue before the Court is as to
whether the plea of the petitioner, based
upon Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of
1950, has rightly been considered by
respondent nos.2 and 3.

10. In order to decide the
aforesaid, this Court finds it appropriate to
take note of some authorities wherein
Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 has
been considered and interpreted.

11. Relevant paras of the judgment
passed in the case of Satya Veer and
another vs State of U.P. and others; 2015
SCC Online All 7504 read as under:-

"12. To examine this question, it
would be apt to go through the relevant
provisions under the Act:-
Section 122-B reads as under:-
"122-B. Powers
of
the
Land
Management
Committee
and
the
Collector.-
(1) Where any property vested
under the provisions of this Act in a Gaon
Sabha or a local authority is damaged or
misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha
or local authority is entitled to take or
retain possession of any land under the
provisions of this Act and such land is
occupied otherwise than in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, the Land
Management
Committee
or
L???cal
Authority, as the case may be, shall inform
the Assistant Collector concerned in the
manner prescribed.
(2) Where from the information
received under sub-section (1) or otherwise,
the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any
property referred to in sub-section (1) has
been damaged or misappropriated or any
person is in occupation of any land, referred
to in that sub-section, in contravention of the
provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to
the person concerned to show cause why
compensation for damage, misappropriation
or wrongful occupation as mentioned in
such notice be not recovered from him or, as
the case may be, why he should not be
evicted from such land.
(3) If the person to whom a notice
has been issued under subsection (2) fails to
show cause within the time specified in the
notice or within such extended time not
exceeding three months from the date of
service of such notice on such person, as the
Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf,
or if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient, the Assistant Collector may
direct that such person may be evicted from
the land and may for that purpose, use, or
cause to be used such force as may be
necessary and may direct that the amount of
compensation for damage, misappropriation
or wrongful occupation be recovered from
such person as arrears of land revenue.
(4) If the Assistant Collector is of
opinion that the person showing cause is not
guilty
of
causing
the
damage
or
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
referred to in the notice under sub-section
(2) he shall discharge the notice.
(4-A) Any person aggrieved by the
order of the Assistant Collector under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) may, within
thirty days from the date of such order
prefer, a revision before the Collector on the
grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of
section 333.
(4-B) The procedure to be followed
in any action taken under this section shall
be such as may be prescribed.
(4-C)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in section 333 or section 333-A,
but subject to the provisions of this
section-
1402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(i) every order of the Assistant
Collector under this section shall, subject
to the provisions of subsections (4-A) and
(4-D), be final.
(ii) every order of the Collector
under this section shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (4-D), be final.
(4-D) Any person aggrieved by the
order of the Assistant Collector or
Collector in respect of any property under
this section may file a suit in a Court of
competent jurisdiction to establish the right
claimed by him in such property.
(4-E) No such suit as is referred to
in sub-section (4-D) shall lie against an
order of the Assistant Collector if a revision
is preferred to the Collector under subsection (4-A).
Explanation.-For the purposes of
this section, the expression 'Collector'
means the officer appointed as Collector
under the provisions of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an
Additional Collector].
Section
122-B(4-F)-
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
subsection,
where
any
agricultural
labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any
land vested in a Gaon Sabha under section
117 (not being land mentioned in section
132) having occupied it from before [May
13, 2007] and the land so occupied
together with land, if any, held by him from
before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or
asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares
(3.125 acres), then no action under this
section shall be taken by the Land
Management Committee or the Collector
against such labourer and it shall be
deemed that he has been admitted as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of
that land under section 195 and it shall not
be necessary for him to institute a suit for
declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with
nontransferable rights in that land.
Explanation.-The
expression
'agricultural labourer' shall have the
meaning assigned to it in section 198."
13. Section 123 further reads as
under:-
"Section 123. Certain house sites to
be settled with existing owner thereof.-(1)
Without prejudice to the provisions of
section 9, where any person referred to in
sub-section (3) of section 122-C has built a
house on any land referred to in subsection (2) of that section, not being land
reserved for any public purpose and such
house exists on the (30th day of June, 1985)
the site of such house shall be held by the
owner of the house on terms and conditions
as may be prescribed.
(2) Where any person referred to in
sub-section (3) of section 122-C has built a
house on any land held by a tenure-holder
(not being a Government lessee) and such
house exists on the (30th day of June, 1985)
the
site
of
such
house
shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, be deemed to be settled with the owner
of such house by the tenure holder on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
Explanation.-For the purposes of
sub-section (2), a house existing on the
(30th day of June, 1985) on any land held
by a tenure-holder shall, unless the
contrary is proved, be presumed to have
been built by the occupant thereof and
where the occupants are members of one
family by the head of that family.)"
14. These are the two provisions
which provides for settlement of land in
favour of the scheduled castes or scheduled
tribes agricultural labourers who have
built their house or have occupied the land
prior to the cut-off date i.e. 1.5.2002 (in the
instant case).
4 All. Ram Tirath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1403
15. Only rider is that the land in
question should not be a land reserved for
public purpose or the land mentioned in
section 132 of the Act. In so far as
according benefit of section 122-B (4-F) is
concerned, the petitioners who allege their
possession have to fulfil certain conditions.
16. Section 122-B under the scheme
of the Act provides for a complete
mechanism to save Gaon/Sabha land from
encroachment
and
unauthorised
possession.
17. Sub-section (1) provides that
information has to be sent by the Land
Management Committee to Gaon Sabha or
local authority in case of any encroachment
over the land of Gaon Sabha or the local
authority and the Assistant Collector
concerned shall proceed in the manner
prescribed therein.
18. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4)
provide for the manner in which a report of
encroachment is to be dealt with by the
Assistant Collector.
19. Sub-section
(4-A)
further
provides that if any person is aggrieved by
the order of Assistant Collector under
subsection (3) or sub-section (4) of section
122-B, he may prefer revision before the
Collector.
20. Sub-section
(4-C)
further
provides that the order of Assistant
Collector or the Collector as the case may
be, is final.
21. Sub-section
(4-D)
further
provides that any person, aggrieved by the
orders of the Assistant Collector or
Collector, may file a suit before the
competent Court to establish his rights.
22. These provisions imposed a
responsibility upon the Land Management
Committee to keep a vigil on the
encroachment or unauthorised occupation
of the Gaon-Sabha land. In case of any
such situation, immediate action is to be
taken by making a report to the Assistant
Collector concerned who shall issue a
notice and take appropriate action and
shall pass necessary orders accordingly.
23. However, sub-section (4-F) of
section 122-B of the Act carves out an
exception which permits the occupation
over the Gaon-Sabha land by a certain
class
of
persons
namely
Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled
Tribes
who
is
an
agricultural landless labourer and has
been in possession over the said land
before 1st May, 2002. Sub section (4-F)
which was substituted by U.P. Act No. 24 of
1986 is an enabling provision to protect the
agricultural
labourers
belonging
to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
from being evicted from the Gaon-Sabha
land if he/she fulfils the conditions
enumerated therein.
24. Section 195 confers power upon
the Land Management Committee to admit
any persons as "Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights" to any land which does
not fall in any of the clauses mentioned in
section 132 with the previous approval of
the Assistant Collec tor incharge of the
Sub-Divisions with respect to the lands as
follows:-
"(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."
25. Section 197 of the Act, however,
gives power to the Land Management
Committee to admit any person as 'Aasami'
to any land falling in any of the clauses
mentioned in section 132. Thus, under the
Scheme of "U.P. Zamindari, Abolition &
Land Reforms Act" but for the aforesaid
provisions of sub-section (4-F), the rights
of
any
person
as
Bhumidhar
with
1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transferable or non-transferable rights, as
the case may, unless his name is duly
recorded in the revenue records has not
been recognised except where such person
seeks declaration by filing a suit under
section 229-B of the Act. It is only by virtue
of subsection (4-F) of section 122-B that the
agricultural
labourer
who
fulfils
the
conditions given therein is not required to
seek a declaration by filing a suit and can be
admitted
as
"Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights" under section 195.
26. Thus, from a reading of the
provisions of section 122-B in its entirety, it
is clear that sub-section (4-F) is not a
provision for seeking declaration of the
rights of a person who is in occupation of
the Gaon-Sabha land for declaring him as
"Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights". In
fact, it is a right to defend, if such a person
is to be evicted or dispossessed from the
land of Gaon-Sabha in an appropriate
provision under the Act. Thus, the occupant
as described in sub-section (4-F), who is
sought to be evicted from the Gaon-Sabha
land, would have a right to plead and
establish that since his possession has
continued since before the cut-off date,
rights had precipitated in his favour and he
is a Bhumidhar of the land with nontransferable rights, if such plea is raised the
same would be considered by the authority
concerned before evicting that person.
27. The right of defence given under
the said provision to an Agricultural
labourer
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe cannot be taken as a
right of seeking declaration under the
aforesaid provisions. Meaning thereby,
section 122-B (4-F) cannot be taken
recourse
for
recording
entry
in
the
'Khatauni'."

12. Relevant para of the judgment
passed in Special Appeal no.479 of 2015
(Sushila and another vs State of U.P. and
others) reads as under:-

"Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B
has been construed and interpreted in a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Manorey alias Manohar vs. Board of
Revenue (U.P.) and Ors.3. The Supreme
Court held that sub-section (4F) carves out
an exception from the provisions of subsections (1), (2) & (3) under which a
procedure for eviction of unauthorized
occupants of land vested in the Gram
Sabha is provided. The exception which is
carved out by sub-section (4F) is in favour
of agricultural labourers belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes
having land below the stipulated ceiling of
3.125 acres. Where the conditions of subsection (4F) are fulfilled, the legislature
has provided that no action to evict such
person shall be taken and he shall be
deemed
to
have
been
admitted
as
Bhumidhar with non transferable rights
over the land.
The Supreme Court has held thus:
"8. First, the endeavour should be
to analyze and identify the nature of the
right or protection conferred by sub-section
(4F) of Section 122-B. Sub-sections (1) to
(3) and the ancillary provisions upto subsection (4E) deal inter alia, with the
procedure for eviction of unauthorized
occupants of land vested in Gaon Sabha.
Sub-section (4F) carves out an exception in
favour
of
an
agricultural
labourer
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe having land below the
ceiling of 3.125 acres. Irrespective of the
circumstances in which such eligible
person occupied the land vested in Gaon
Sabha (other than the land mentioned in
Section 132), no action to evict him shall be
taken and moreover, he shall be deemed to
have been admitted as a Bhumidhar with
4 All. Ram Tirath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1405
non transferable rights over the land,
provided
he
satisfies
the
conditions
specified in the sub-section. According to
the findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer
as well as the appellate authority, the
appellant does satisfy the conditions. If so,
two legal consequences follow. Such
occupant of the land shall not be evicted by
taking recourse to sub-section (1) to (3) of
Section 122B. It means that the occupant of
the land who satisfies the conditions under
sub-section (4F) is entitled to safeguard his
possession as against the Gaon Sabha. The
second and more important right which
sub-section (4F) confers on him is that he
is endowed with the rights of a Bhumidhar
with no-transferable rights. The deeming
provision has been specifically enacted as a
measure of agrarian reform, with a thrust
on socio-economic justice. The statutorily
conferred right of Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights finds its echo in clause
(b) of Section 131. Any person who
acquires the rights of Bhumidhar under or
in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, is recognized under Section 131 as
falling within the class of Bhumidhar. The
right acquired or accrued under subsection (4F) is one such right that falls
within the purview of Section 131(b)."
The Supreme Court also held that
sub-section (4F) is not merely a shield to
protect the possession of a person who
fulfills the conditions in sub-section (4F)
but it also confers a positive right of being
recognized as Bhumidhar on the occupant
satisfying the conditions and criteria laid
down in the sub-section.
The Supreme Court has held thus:
"Thus, sub-section (4F) of Section
122-B not merely provides a shield to
protect the possession as opined by the
High Court, but it also confers a positive
right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the
land satisfying the criteria laid down in
that sub-Section. ...When once the deeming
provision unequivocally provides for the
admission of the person satisfying the
requisite criteria laid down in the provision
as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
under Section 195, full effect must be given
to it. Section 195 lays down that the Land
Management Committee, with the previous
approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub Division, shall have the
right to admit any person as Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights to any vacant
land (other than the land falling under
Section 132) vested in the Gaon Sabha.
Section 198 prescribes "the order of
preference in admitting persons to land
under Sections 195 and 197". The last part
of sub-section (4F) of Section 122-B
confers by a statutory fiction the status of
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on
the eligible occupant of the land as if he
has been admitted as such under Section
195. In substance and in effect, the deeming
provision declares that the statutorily
recognized Bhumidhar should be as good
as a person admitted to Bhumidhari rights
under Section 195 read with other
provisions. In a way, sub-section (4F)
supplements Section 195 by specifically
granting the same benefit to a person
coming within the protective umbrella of
that sub-section. The need to approach the
Gaon Sabha under Section 195 read with
Section 198 is obviated by the deeming
provision contained in sub-section (4F). We
find no warrant to constrict the scope of
deeming provision.""

13. Relevant para of the judgment
passed
in
Writ-C
no.129
of
2013
(Brahmanand and others vs State of U.P.
and others) reads as under:-

"9. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions it is quite explicit that
1406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the intendment of the legislature in
incorporating
said
provision
was
to
automatically conferred the rights in
respect of the category of lessees who had
the possession as on 30th June, 1985 and,
therefore, if the tenure holder was living on
said date, he would have automatically
become entitled to the said benefit. Merely
because necessary application has come to
be made at a later point of time and tenure
holder died leaving behind heirs, the said
claim cannot be denied on the ground that
on the date application had been moved the
original tenure holder had died and that
land later on came within territorial of the
municipality
or
Nagar
Nigam.
The
provision clearly indicates that one who
was in possession of the land on the
relevant date, the land stood settled with
the said person conferring upon him with
the
status
of
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable and mere application would
have only resulted in necessary correction
in the revenue records. So, even if the
application is subsequently moved, it
cannot be said that the rights would accrue
only on the date of the application and in
case if the tenure holder died subsequently
his heirs shall be denied benefits. The right
to the tenure holder accrued in the year
1985 itself as per the provision and
subsequent death of the tenure holder
would
automatically
result
in
the
succession of his heirs and right would
automatically
get
transferred
to
the
successors and it cannot be said that the
bhumidhari rights even in the category of
non transferable rights are not subject to
succession and, therefore, in my considered
opinion the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
manifestly erred in rejecting the application
on the ground that the heirs would not have
been permitted to step into the shoes to
claim rights under the relevant provision of
law.
10.
Besides
above,
once
the
Additional Commissioner had remitted the
matter with clear obsrvation in the order of
remand that the claim would not be denied
on the ground that subsequently the land
had got notified under the Nagar Nigam
under the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam
Act, 1959, it was not open for the SubDivisional Magistrate to sit in appeal over
the order of the Additional Commssioner
and thus, the Court is of definite opinion
that the authority has clearly exceeded its
jurisdiction and authoritiy in making such
observation and, therefore, the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on
that count also cannot be sustained.
11. So far the findings recorded by
the
Additional
Commissioner
in
the
subsequent revision is concerned, as I have
already held hereinabove that rights would
not get changed merely because the land
has subseqently been notified as within the
territorial limits of Nagar Nigam Meerut, if
the tenure holder was in possession on the
cut of date i.e. 30th June, 1985. In my
above observation and the view taken by
me, I am supported by the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Manorey v. Board
of Revenue 2003 (5) SCC 521, wherein the
Supreme Court while dealing with the said
provision
and
its
application,
vide
paragraph 9 of the judgment has held
thus:-
"9. Thus, sub-Section (4F) of
Section 122B not merely provides a shield
to protect the possession as opined by the
High Court, but it also confers a positive
right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the
land satisfying the criteria laid down in
that sub-Section. Notwithstanding the clear
language in which the deeming provision is
couched and the ameliorative purpose of
the legislation, the learned single Judge of
the High Court had taken the view in
Ramdin Vs. Board of Revenue (supra)
4 All. Ram Tirath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1407
(followed by the same learned Judge in the
instant case) that the Bhumidhari rights of
the occupant contemplated by sub-Section
(4F) can only blossom out when there is a
specific allotment order by the Land
Management Committee under Section 198.
According to the High Court, the deeming
provision contained in sub-Section (4F)
cannot be overstretched to supersede the
other provisions in the Act dealing
specifically with the creation of the right of
Bhumidhar. In other words, the view of the
High Court was that a person covered by
the beneficial provision contained in subSection (4F) will have to still go through
the process of allotment under Section 198
even though he is not liable for eviction. As
a corollary to this view, it was held that the
occupant
was
not
entitled
to
seek
correction of revenue records, even if his
case falls under sub-Section (4F) of Section
122B. We hold that the view of the High
Court is clearly unsustainable. It amounts
to ignoring the effect of a deeming
provision enacted with a definite social
purpose. When once the deeming provision
unequivocally provides for the admission of
the person satisfying the requisite criteria
laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights under Section
195, full effect must be given to it. Section
195 lays down that the Land Management
Committee, with the previous approval of
the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub
Division, shall have the right to admit any
person as Bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights to any vacant land (other than the
land falling under Section 132) vested in
the Gaon Sabha. Section 198 prescribes
"the order of preference in admitting
persons to land under Sections 195 and
197". The last part of sub-Section (4F) of
Section 122B confers by a statutory fiction
the
status
of
Bhumidhar
with
non
transferable rights on the eligible occupant
of the land as if he has been admitted as
such under Section 195. In substance and
in effect, the deeming provision declares
that the statutorily recognized Bhumidhar
should be as good as a person admitted to
Bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read
with other provisions. In a way, sub-Section
(4F)
supplements
Section
195
by
specifically granting the same benefit to a
person
coming
within
the
protective
umbrella of that sub-Section. The need to
approach the Gaon Sabha under Section
195 read with Section 198 is obviated by
the deeming provision contained in subSection (4F). We find no warrant to
constrict the scope of deeming provision.
That being the legal position, there is no
bar against an application being made by
the eligible person coming within the four
corners of sub-Section (4F) to effect
necessary changes in the revenue record.
When once the claim of the applicant is
accepted, it is the bounden duty of the
concerned revenue authorities to make
necessary entries in revenue records to give
effect to the statutory mandate. The
obligation to do so arises by necessary
implication by reason of the statutory right
vested in the person coming within the
ambit of sub-Section (4F). The lack of
specific
provision
for
making
an
application under the Act is no ground to
dismiss
the
application
as
not
maintainable. The revenue records should
naturally fall in line with the rights
statutorily recognized. The Sub-Divisional
Officer was therefore within his rights to
allow the application and direct the
correction of the records. The Board of
Revenue and the High Court should not
have set aside that order. The fact that the
Land Management Committee of Gaon
Sabha had created lease hold rights in
favour of the respondents herein is of no
consequence. Such lease, in the face of the
1408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statutory right of the appellant, is nonest in
the eye of law and is liable to be ignored."

14. From the aforesaid, it is
apparent that Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act
of 1950 is a beneficial and deeming
provision enacted with a definite social
purpose and this deeming provision
unequivocally provides for the admission
of the person satisfying the requisite
criteria laid down in the provision as
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
under the Act of 1995 and full effect must
be given to it and this provision as per the
Hon'ble Apex Court is not a mere shield to
protect the possession of a person who
fulfills the conditions indicated in subsection (4-F) but also confers positive
right of being recognized as Bhumidhar or
occupant satisfying the condition /criteria
provided under the Act of 1950 and
further, this provision provides rights to
defend, if such person is to be evicted or
dispossessed from the land of Gaon Sabha.

15. In view of the aforesaid, it is
now to be considered the effect of rights
provided to an occupant of Gaon Sabha
land under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act
of 1950, after enforcement of Code of
2006, w.e.f. 11.02.2006 and on this aspect,
it would be relevant to consider Section
230 of the Code of 2006, which reads as
under:-