# Rama Shanker & Ors v. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 15451 of 1996
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-shanker-ors-v-the-board-of-revenue-u-p-allahabad-ors-54556
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 122B(4F)-The
petitioners
belonging
to
dthe
Scheduled caste community, were granted
the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the
Act,1950 in respect of Gaon Sabha land
vide
orders
dated
31.01.1994
and
20.01.1994-Their names were accordingly
recorded
in
the
revenue
records
as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rightsSubsequently, the District Government
counsel filed a recall application, which
was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
on 17.09.1994, setting aside the original
allotment order-The Board of Revenue,
upon reference from the Additional
Commissioner
recommending
restoration of the petitioner's rights,
rejected the same vide order dated
25.01.1996-The court held that once the
benefit of Section 122B(4-F) is granted,
the proper procedure to challenge the
same is through proceedings u/s 198(4)
of the Act,1950 and not by way of
recall/restoration
applications-The
recall application filed by the DGC was
therefore not maintainable-Reliance was
placed on Navami Lal Vs. State, Smt.
Reshma Devi Vs. Commissioner and the
Supreme court judgment in Manorey @
Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue which
affirmed the substantive and procedural
rights of Scheduled caste agricultural
labourers
u/s
122B(4-F)-The
orders
dated
17.09.1994(SDO)
and
25.01.1996(Board of Revenue) are set
aside.(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the petitioners that their father Har
Krishan
had
acquired
the
property
alongwith Hardwar and therefore, again
there cannot be any plea of family
settlement specially between Chhitna and
the petitioners in exclusion to the others
that
would
necessarily
include
Smt.
Yashodra to say the least.

43. For the said reasons, the plea of
family settlement also does not inspire
confidence and the reasonings given by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation as well
as Settlement Officer of Consolidation to
discard the plea of family settlement does
not suffer from any palpable error.

44. Upon examining the plea of a
compromise said to have occurred before the
court of Tehsildar, the same did not find
acceptance before the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and the Deputy Director of
Consolidation and this Court also agrees with
the reasonings that the said compromise in
mutation proceedings was in any case not
binding in the sense that it could deprive a
lawful owner of his right. It could not be
disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the alleged compromise said to have been
filed in the court of Tehsildar was only signed
by Parag. It did not have the signatures of Smt.
Chhitna, Smt. Yashodra or even Agya Ram
himself. Even if at all for the sake of
arguments, the said compromise is taken into
consideration, even then it cannot have any
binding impact as it was held in a mutation
proceedings whereas the same came to be
disputed in proceedings under Section 9-A (2)
of the Act of 1953 which are substantive
proceedings where the rights of the parties
including their title is decided and the same
has a binding impact including it operates as
res-judicata in terms of Section 49 of the Act
of 1953 before any other revenue or civil
court.
In
the
proceedings
before
the
Consolidation Officer, the said compromise
was neither proved despite the fact that Smt.
Chhitna had denied the said compromise. It
was always open for the petitioners to have
proved the compromise but it was not proved
and thus by merely taking the plea without
proving the said compromise in accordance
with law, it cannot be treated to have been
proved. There was no justification for the said
compromise to be accepted when it was not
signed by Yashodra, Parag and Chhitna.
Hence, the plea of compromise is also turned
down.

45. Lastly, the plea that the property
was ancestral also in the light of the aforesaid
discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner
could not prove that the property was ancestral
and even otherwise it was contrary to his
pleadings, thus the said plea also does not have
any merit.

46. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
petition bearing Writ -B No.4405 of 1985 has
no merit and is accordingly dismissed. So also
the Writ -B No.3396 of 1987 meets the same
fate. It is accordingly dismissed.

Costs are made easy.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 240
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 15451 of 1996

Rama Shanker & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
3 All. Rama Shanker & Ors. Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors.
241
Sri Prakash Chandra, Sri Vishal Khandelwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sri Avinash
Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C., Sri Jai Raj
Singh Tomar

A. Civil Law -U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 122B(4F)-The
petitioners
belonging
to
dthe
Scheduled caste community, were granted
the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the
Act,1950 in respect of Gaon Sabha land
vide
orders
dated
31.01.1994
and
20.01.1994-Their names were accordingly
recorded
in
the
revenue
records
as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rightsSubsequently, the District Government
counsel filed a recall application, which
was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
on 17.09.1994, setting aside the original
allotment order-The Board of Revenue,
upon reference from the Additional
Commissioner
recommending
restoration of the petitioner's rights,
rejected the same vide order dated
25.01.1996-The court held that once the
benefit of Section 122B(4-F) is granted,
the proper procedure to challenge the
same is through proceedings u/s 198(4)
of the Act,1950 and not by way of
recall/restoration
applications-The
recall application filed by the DGC was
therefore not maintainable-Reliance was
placed on Navami Lal Vs. State, Smt.
Reshma Devi Vs. Commissioner and the
Supreme court judgment in Manorey @
Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue which
affirmed the substantive and procedural
rights of Scheduled caste agricultural
labourers
u/s
122B(4-F)-The
orders
dated
17.09.1994(SDO)
and
25.01.1996(Board of Revenue) are set
aside.(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Navmi Lal Vs St. of U.P. thru Secy &
ors.(2018) 141 R.D. 750

2. Smt Reshma Devi & ors.Vs Commr. &
ors.(2014)122 RD 667

3. Basdev Vs St. of U.P. & Ors(2023) 9 ADJ 208

4. Manorey @ Manohar Vs Board of Revenue &
ors.(2003) AIR SC 4102

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

1. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Abhishek
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava,
learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioners were granted benefit of Section
122 B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein
after referred to as the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act) in respect to plot no. 430 situated in
village
-Sikandarpur
Kotwar,
TehsilFirozabad, District-Firozabad vide order
dated 31.01.1994 and 20.01.1994. Against
the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994
granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F)
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in favour of the
petitioners, the recall application has been
filed on 14.09.1994 by District Government
Counsel. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order
dated
17.09.1994
allowed
the
aforementioned application setting aside
the order dated 31.01.1994 and restored the
proceeding to its original number. Against
the order dated 17.09.1994 passed by SubDivisional Officer, petitioner filed three
revisions before the Commissioner, which
were registered as revision no. 1 of 1994, 2
of 1994 & 3 of 1994 under Section 333A of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Additional
Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division,
Agra vide order dated 19.09.1995 sent the
reference before the Board of Revenue for
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowing the revisions, setting aside the
orders dated 17.09.1994 passed by the SubDivisional Officer in three cases and for
fresh disposal of restoration applications.
The
references
were
registered
as
Reference Nos. 15, 16, 17 of 1995-96.
Board of Revenue vide order dated
25.01.1996 rejected the references. Hence
this writ petition on behalf of the
petitioners for the following reliefs:-

 (i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the order dated 25.01.1996,
passed by Board of Revenue in all the
references 15 to 17 of 1995-96 as well as
order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Firozabad dated 17.09.1994.

(ii) to pass any further orders,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem proper
& appropriate under the facts and
circumstances of the case."

3. This Court entertained the matter
and granted the interim protection on
08.05.1996 staying the operation of the
impugned orders.

4. In pursuance of the order dated
08.5.1996, affidavits have been exchanged
between the parties.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submitted
that
petitioners
belong to Scheduled Caste Community and
petitioners were found in possession over
the plot in question before the relevant
date accordingly, benefit of Section 122B
(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was
granted to the petitioners in proper manner.
He further submitted that on the basis of
the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994
granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F)
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the name of
the petitioners were accordingly recorded
in the revenue record. He placed the copy
of the 'Khatauni' annexed as annexure no. 1
to the instant petition in order to
demonstrate that in the remark column
particular of the order granting the benefit
of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act has been mentioned to record the
name of the petitioners as 'Bhoomidhar'
with non transferable rights. He next
submitted that the recall application has
been
filed
against
the
order
dated
31.01.1994 in place of initiating proper
proceeding as held by this Court in the
Case reported in 2018(141) R.D. 750
Navmi Lal Vs. State of U.P. through
Secretary and Others as well as Case
reported in 2014 (122) RD 677 Smt.
Reshma
Devi
and
others
Versus
Commissioner and others. He submitted
that in view of the ratio of law laid down
by this Court in Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra)
&
Navmi
Lal
(Supra),
the
Recall/Restoration Application cannot be
entertained against the order granting the
benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted
that Additional Commissioner has rightly
sent the reference for allowing the revision,
but Board of Revenue has rejected the
references in arbitrary manner. He next
submitted that petitioners are still in
possession over the plot in question on the
basis
of
the
order
dated
31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit
of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act, as such the impugned order
should be set aside and the order dated
31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit
of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act should be maintained.

6. On the other hand, Sri Abhishek
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State and
3 All. Rama Shanker & Ors. Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors.
243
Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned
Counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that
the recall application has been rightly filed
on behalf of the Gaon Sabha by District
Government Counsel against the order
dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994 on the ground
that the order was passed in exparte manner
without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the Gaon Sabha. They further
submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer has
set
aside
the
order
dated
31.01.1994/20.01.1994 and restored the
proceedings
for
afresh
decision
in
accordance
with
law,
as
such
no
interference
is
required
against
the
impugned order dated 25.01.1996 as
petitioners
have
full
opportunity
to
participate in the proceedings before the
Court in pursuance of the order of SubDivisional Officer dated 17.09.1994. They
next submitted that Board of Revenue has
rightly rejected the reference sent by the
Additional Commissioner, as such no
interference is required. They further
placed the reliance upon the judgment of
this Court reported in 2023 (9) ADJ 208
Basdev Versus State of U.P. and Others in
order
to
demonstrate
that
recall
or
restoration application can be filed at any
time, if the order has been passed in exparte
manner in respect to the Gaon Sabha/State
Land. They submitted that no interference
is required and writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

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

8. There is no dispute about the
facts
that
petitioners
belong
to
the
scheduled Community and petitioners were
granted benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of
the
U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act
on
31.01.1994/20.01.1994. There is also no
dispute about the facts that on the basis of
restoration application, the order dated
31.01.1994/20.01.1994 have been recalled
and proceeding has been restored to its
original number. There is no dispute about
the fact that in revision filed by the
petitioners references were sent before the
Board of Revenue for allowing the
revision, but Board of Revenue has
dismissed the reference sent by Additional
Commissioner.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter perusal
of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act will be relevant, which is as
under:-

"[(4F)
Notwithstanding
anything in the foregoing sub-section,
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 [he shall be 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.]"
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case
reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4102
Manorey alias Manohar Vs. Board of
Revenue & others has considered the scope
of the proceeding under Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Relevant
paragraphs of judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Moneray (Supra)
will be relevant for perusal which are as
under:-

"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) (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
sub-Section (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 subSection (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
nontransferable 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 nontransferable 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
3 All. Rama Shanker & Ors. Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors.
245
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 statutory right of the appellant, is
nonest in the eye of law and is liable to be
ignored.

It is surprising that the State of
U.P. had chosen to file an appeal against
the order of the S.D.O., in tandem with the
Gaon Sabha. It seems to be a clear case of
non-application of mind on the part of the
concerned authorities of the State who are
supposed to effectuate the socio-economic
objective of the legislation.
 The appeal is allowed. The
orders of the Board of Revenue and the
High Court are set aside. The S.D.O's
order is restored. No costs."

11. In the instant matter petitioners
belong to Scheduled Caste Community and
the authorities have granted benefit of
Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act in favour of the petitioners on
31.01.1994/20.01.1994, as such the recall
application
filed
by
the
District
Government Counsel cannot be entertained
in view of the ratio of law laid down by this
Court in the Case of Navmi Lal (Supra) &
Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra).

12. This Court in the Case of
Navmi Lal (Supra) & Reshma Devi
(Supra) has held that after granting the
benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the proper procedure
is to apply under Section 198(4) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act rather to file the
recall/ restoration against the order granting
the benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioners have
been granted interim order by this Court in
the
year
1996
and
petitioners
are
continuing in possession over the plot in
question.
Paragraph
No.
11
of
the
Judgement rendered by this Court in the
case of Navmi Lal (Supra) will be relevant
for perusal which is as under:-

"11. However, for the purposes
of proceedings either under Section 198(4)
of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act or under
Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, admission of a person to land vested
in Gaon Sabha has been made under
Section 195 read with Section 198 or
under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Z.A
& L.R. Act, does not make any difference.
In both the proceedings, the eligible
persons are admitted to Gaon Sabha land
and Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, as observed above, is a pari-materia
to the provisions contained in Section
198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and
vests an authority in the Collector to
cancel such an allotment or admission
after enquiry. 'Allotment of land' as
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occurring under Section 128 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 and Section 198 (4)
of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be
permitted to be confined to allotment of
land under Section 195 read with Section
198 of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act alone;
rather it covers in its fold the admission of
a person to Gaon Sabha land giving him
the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the
said Act."

13. Paragraph No. 11 of the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case
of Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra) will be also
relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"11.The submission of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
proceeding
of
cancellation
of
the
allotment
of
land
under
Section
122B(4F) could not be initiated, under
Sub-Section
4
of
Section
198
is
misconceived for the reason that under
Section
122B(4F),
the
person
is
admitted as bhumidhar with nontransferable right of the land under
Section 195 and Section 198 takes care
of Section 195 and 197 both, therefore
sub-section (4) of Section 198 would be
applicable with respect to both i.e.
allotment of land under Section 195 or
197 of the Act."

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court, the impugned order
dated 25.01.1996 passed by respondent no.
1/Board of Revenue in reference case nos.
15 to 17 of 1995-96 as well as the order
dated 17.09.1994 passed by respondent no.
2/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Firozabad are
liable to be set aside and the same are
hereby set aside.
15.
The
writ
petition
stands
allowed
and
order
dated
31.01.1994/20.01.1994
granting
the
benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in favour of the
petitioners is affirmed. The authorities are
directed to record the name of the
petitioners on the basis of the order
granting the benefits of Section 122B (4-F)
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the revenue
records accordingly.

16. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 246
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 147 of 2023

Ashok Gandhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Tax Law - Entertainment Tax -
Multiplex Cinema - Incentive Scheme -
10% of the amount of grant-in-aid and
interest was directed to be deposited for
re-examining
the
case
-
Validity
challenged - Held, the demand to deposit
10% of the total grant-in-aid concession
provided to the petitioner, for hearing of
the representation is neither founded in
the statute nor the same is at an appellate
stage. (Para 9 & 15)

B. Tax Law - Principle of natural justice -
Applicability - No opportunity of hearing