# Ram Vriksha v. The Asstt. Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 818
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48682 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-vriksha-v-the-asstt-director-of-consolidation-gorakhpur-and-another-40543
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Chief Standing Counsel
Sri V.K. Singh (S.C.)
(Gaon Sabha)

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reform
Act-Section
122-B
(4-f)-
Settlement
of
Gaon
Sabha
Landpetitioner alleging himself to belonging
to scheduled Cost Candidates-on the
basis of compromise the village Pradhangiven
the
land
in
question
for
construction of 'Barat Ghar'-No material
produced regarding plea of agricultural
labour-the
man
possessing
financial
status to construct a 'Barat Ghar' can not
be
agricultural
labour-compromise
between the petitioner and the Gaon
Panchayat-unsustainable-court
expressed
its
great
concern-D.M.
concerned
to
initiate
appropriate
proceeding
against
the
concerned
revenue officials.

Held: Para 14,15 and 16

The property in question vests in Gaon
Panchayat and is not a private property
of Gram Pradhan. Gram Pradhan is only
custodian of such property. Any property
2 All] Ram Vriksha V. The Asstt. Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and another 819
vested in Gaon Sabha is the property of
entire village commynity. The order
dated 2.2.2005 by which petitioner was
permitted to make construction of Barat
Ghar
on
the
basis
of
compromise
between
the
petitioner
and
Gram
Pradhan
on
the
property
of
Gaon
Panchyat is wholly unsustainable in law.
This Court is also of the opinion that if a
person is having capacity to construct
Barat Ghar, he cannot be considered to
be a landless agricultural labourer under
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and is a person of
sufficient means.

For
admission
of
a
person
as
a
Bhumidhar under Section 122-B (4-F) of
the Act, the first condition to be satisfied
is
that
the
person
must
be
an
agricultural labourer. In order to prove
that he is an agricultural labourer,
applicant claiming benefit under Section
122-B(4-F) of the Act is required to
prove that his main source of livelihood
is agricultural labour. For this purpose he
shall also have to prove the facts giving
details such as where and in whose field
he is working as an agricultural labour as
well as his total income received from
working as an agriculture labour and
other relevant facts. Second important
factum required to be proved is that the
main source of livelihood of a person
claiming benefit under Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is agriculture
labour.

In the present case neither there is any
evidence
on
record
to
show
that
petitioner was ever engaged or working
as an agricultural labour or his main
source of livelihood was income from
agricultural labour. The report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 5.7.2003 does
not mention petitioner as an agricultural
labourer on the relevant date.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
818
Consolidation cannot be said to be
justified in any manner in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances.

18. The objection raised by learned
counsel for the respondents that writ
petition challenging remand order is not
maintainable, is also not liable to be
accepted. It cannot be said that as a rule
writ petition against remand order is not
maintainable. Generally, the court refused
to interfere or issue a writ of certiorari
against a remand order for there is no
final adjudication. If the court normally
does not interfere with the remand order,
it does not mean that there is any lack of
power or the writ petition is not
maintainable. The court can interfere if it
finds
the
circumstances
to
be
extraordinary
or
the
interference
necessary in the interest of justice. In the
present case on the material available on
the
record
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation recorded a finding of fact
regarding the age of the petitioner, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation without
even referring to the said documents or
setting aside the finding of fact recorded
by Settlement Officer has remanded the
case back and that too on the illegal
presumption that the sale deed was a
viodable document. Thus the remand
order in no way can be said to be justified.
The approach of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is totally contrary to the
law and the order deserves to be
interfered and quashed by this court.

19. In the result writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order of Deputy Director of Consolidation
dated 26.8.1980 stands quashed and that
of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated
9.3.1979 stands affirmed. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.7.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48682 of 2005

Kripal Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chief Standing Counsel
Sri V.K. Singh (S.C.)
(Gaon Sabha)

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reform
Act-Section
122-B
(4-f)-
Settlement
of
Gaon
Sabha
Landpetitioner alleging himself to belonging
to scheduled Cost Candidates-on the
basis of compromise the village Pradhangiven
the
land
in
question
for
construction of 'Barat Ghar'-No material
produced regarding plea of agricultural
labour-the
man
possessing
financial
status to construct a 'Barat Ghar' can not
be
agricultural
labour-compromise
between the petitioner and the Gaon
Panchayat-unsustainable-court
expressed
its
great
concern-D.M.
concerned
to
initiate
appropriate
proceeding
against
the
concerned
revenue officials.

Held: Para 14,15 and 16

The property in question vests in Gaon
Panchayat and is not a private property
of Gram Pradhan. Gram Pradhan is only
custodian of such property. Any property
2 All] Ram Vriksha V. The Asstt. Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and another 819
vested in Gaon Sabha is the property of
entire village commynity. The order
dated 2.2.2005 by which petitioner was
permitted to make construction of Barat
Ghar
on
the
basis
of
compromise
between
the
petitioner
and
Gram
Pradhan
on
the
property
of
Gaon
Panchyat is wholly unsustainable in law.
This Court is also of the opinion that if a
person is having capacity to construct
Barat Ghar, he cannot be considered to
be a landless agricultural labourer under
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and is a person of
sufficient means.

For
admission
of
a
person
as
a
Bhumidhar under Section 122-B (4-F) of
the Act, the first condition to be satisfied
is
that
the
person
must
be
an
agricultural labourer. In order to prove
that he is an agricultural labourer,
applicant claiming benefit under Section
122-B(4-F) of the Act is required to
prove that his main source of livelihood
is agricultural labour. For this purpose he
shall also have to prove the facts giving
details such as where and in whose field
he is working as an agricultural labour as
well as his total income received from
working as an agriculture labour and
other relevant facts. Second important
factum required to be proved is that the
main source of livelihood of a person
claiming benefit under Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is agriculture
labour.

In the present case neither there is any
evidence
on
record
to
show
that
petitioner was ever engaged or working
as an agricultural labour or his main
source of livelihood was income from
agricultural labour. The report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 5.7.2003 does
not mention petitioner as an agricultural
labourer on the relevant date.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the judgment and order dated
29.0.2004
of
Assistant
Collector,
Bharthana,
District
Etawah
rejecting
petitioner's
application
refusing
to
provide benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) in allotment of land
involved in Suit. A revision preferred by
petitioner against the said order was also
rejected by the judgment dated 14.3.2005.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as
well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
urged that the order passed by the
authorities below are vitiated in law. As
petitioner was an landless agricultural
labourer belonging to the Scheduled Caste
in actual possession of the land in dispute
on 1st May, 2002, he will acquire rights
under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act. He
further urged that the findings of the
authorities below to the contrary are
unsustainable in law and the impugned
orders were not passed in accordance with
law.

4. In reply to the same, learned
Standing Counsel urged that the orders
passed by the authorities below were
passed in accordance with law. Petitioner
cannot get any right under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act.

5. In rejoinder learned counsel for
the petitioner referred judgment dated
2.2.2005 of the Sub Divisional Officer,
Bharthana, District Etawah passed on the
basis of some compromise entered into
between Gram Pradhan and petitioner and
urged that under the compromise land in
dispute, total area .37 acre, was settled in
favour of petitioner for construction of
Barat Ghar. He also urged that at least
petitioner may be given benefit of Section
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
820
122-B(4-F) of the Act for that part of the
land, out of total area of land of .74 acre.

Considered the arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel.

6. Benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of
the Act is available to a person who is a
landless agriculture labourer belonging to
the category mentioned therein. Section
122-B(4-F) of the Act being reproduced
below for ready reference:-

Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act

"122-B(4-F)
Notwithstanding
anything in the foregoing sub-sections,
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 1, 2002),
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 nontransferable rights of that land under
Section 195.

Explanation-
The
expression
'agricultural labourer' shall have the
meaning assigned to it in section 198."

Explanation (1) & (2) to Section 198
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act defines
landless agricultural labourer, same are
being quoted below:-

"Explanation (1) 'landless' refers to
a person who or whose spouse or minor
children held no land as bhumidhar or
asami and also held no land as such
within two years immediately preceding
the date of allotment; and

Explanation
(2)
'agricultural
labourer' means a person whose main
source
of
livelihood
is
agricultural
labour."

7. From perusal of the record and
findings recorded by the authorities
below, it is clear that land in Plot Nos.
2035/1, area .12 acre, 2037/2, area .12
acre, 2037, area .14 acre, 2039/3, area .34
acre and 2039/4, area .02 acre total .74
acre were recorded as Bhumidhari land in
the name of petitioner's father Sone Lal.
It
is
also
borne
out
that
during
consolidation proceedings by the order
dated 12.12.2002 passed by the Deputy
Director,
Consolidation,
Etawah
petitioner's father was allotted other land
in lieu of aforesaid plots and aforesaid
plots were reserved as Bachat land and
vested in the Gaon Panchayat. The land
dispute was not Bachat land vested in
Gaon Panchayat on relevant date and
petitioner could not be in possession of
the land in dispute against the law on the
relevant date i.e. 1st May, 2002.

8. In view of the above, petitioner
cannot claim any benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act of the Bachat land on 1st
May, 2002, as the land in dispute was not
in possession of petitioner on the relevant
date.

9. It is clear from the record that in
order to grab the property of Gaon Sabha,
some collusive proceedings appears to
2 All] Kripal Singh V. State of U.P. and others 821
have been initiated by the petitioner in
collusion with the revenue authorities on
the basis of the manipulated report of
Revenue Inspector.

10. The authorities below rightly
considered the entire materials and rightly
rejected petitioner's claim in land in
dispute on the ground that benefit of
Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act could not
be
granted
to
the
petitioner.
The
Revisional authority rightly affirmed said
order.

11. The another aspect of the matter
is that petitioner tried to grab the land of
Gaon Panchayat in collusion with the
Gram Pradhan and some concerned
revenue authorities. The property of Gaon
Panchayat is the property of the entire
village community and the Gram Pradhan
and
concerned
Land
Management
Committee are only custodian of such
property and are authorized to manage the
same in accordance with relevant law and
procedure prescribed.

12. Aims and Object of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act clearly shows intention of the
legislature while enacting U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act in the matter of properties vested
in Gaon Sabha. Relevant portion of Aims
and Object of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is
being quoted below:-

"All lands of common utility, such as
abadi
sites,
pathways,
waste-lands,
forests, fisheries, public wells, tanks and
water channels, will be vested in the
village community or the Gaon Samaj
consisting of all the residents of the
village as well the pahikasht cultivators.
The Gaon Panchayat acting on behalf of
the village community has been entrusted
with wide powers of land management.
This measure which makes the village a
small
republic
and
a
co-operative
community is intended to facilitate
economic and social development and to
encourage
the
growth
of
social
responsibility and community is intended
to
facilitate
economic
and
social
development and to encourage the growth
of social responsibility and community
spirit."

13. From perusal of the order dated
2.2.2005, passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Bharthana it transpires that on the
basis of some compromise entered into
between the Gram Pradhan and the
petitioner,
this
order
was
passed
permitting petitioner to construct Barat
Ghar on plots aforementioned. There is
nothing
on
record
to
show
that
compromise was entered into between the
petitioner and the Gram Pradhan with
prior
permission
of
the
competent
authority by any resolution of the Land
Management Committee.

14. The property in question vests in
Gaon Panchayat and is not a private
property of Gram Pradhan. Gram Pradhan
is only custodian of such property. Any
property vested in Gaon Sabha is the
property of entire village commynity. The
order dated 2.2.2005 by which petitioner
was permitted to make construction of
Barat Ghar on the basis of compromise
between the petitioner and Gram Pradhan
on the property of Gaon Panchyat is
wholly unsustainable in law. This Court is
also of the opinion that if a person is
having capacity to construct Barat Ghar,
he cannot be considered to be a landless
agricultural labourer under the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act and is a person of sufficient
means.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
822
15. For admission of a person as a
Bhumidhar under Section 122-B (4-F) of
the Act, the first condition to be satisfied
is that the person must be an agricultural
labourer. In order to prove that he is an
agricultural labourer, applicant claiming
benefit under Section 122-B(4-F) of the
Act is required to prove that his main
source of livelihood is agricultural labour.
For this purpose he shall also have to
prove the facts giving details such as
where and in whose field he is working as
an agricultural labour as well as his total
income received from working as an
agriculture labour and other relevant facts.
Second important factum required to be
proved is that the main source of
livelihood of a person claiming benefit
under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act is agriculture labour.

16. In the present case neither there
is any evidence on record to show that
petitioner was ever engaged or working as
an agricultural labour or his main source
of
livelihood
was
income
from
agricultural labour. The report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 5.7.2003 does
not mention petitioner as an agricultural
labourer on the relevant date could not be
deemed to be settled in his favour under
Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act.

17. In view of the above facts where
petitioner tried to usurp the property of
Gaon Panchayat, this Court is of the view
that appropriate proceedings be initiated
against the petitioner, Gram Pradhan and
the concerned Revenue Inspector/other
Tehsil authorities in whose collusion
orders were passed in favour of petitioner.
Consequently, the District Magistrate,
Etawah
shall
initiate
appropriate
proceedings
against
the
concerned
revenue
officials/inspector
alongwith
Gram
Pradhan
and
the
petitioner
immediately.

With above directions, writ petition
is dismissed.
 Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47307 of 2005

Chaudhary Chandan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ch. Chandan Singh (In person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-read with
Saw Mill Rules 1998-rule 5,6 and 7
alongwith Notification dt. 3.6.02-Grant
of Saw Mill licence-Regional Director
Samagik Vaniki Van Prabhag-rejected
the application for renewal-challenge the
made on the ground placing reliance
upon the decision of Supreme Court in
Jawahar Lal case reported in J.T. 2002
(1) S.C. 413-held-subsequent decisions
of the Apex Court not brought-before the
Supreme Court-by which-it is mandatory
that the application for licence to be
placed before the Central Empowered
Committee-Regional
Director
rightly
rejected
the
application-call
for
no
interference by High Court.

Held: Para 18 and 23
It is upon a consideration of the
aforesaid provision of the Rules and the
orders of the Supreme Court that the
Regional
Director
has
rejected
the