# Ranvir Singh and another v. The Board of Revenue U.P., Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33779 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranvir-singh-and-another-v-the-board-of-revenue-u-p-allahabad-and-others-40499
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Anupam Kulshrestha
Sri K.R. Sirohi
Sri Anuj Kumar
S.C.

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolution
and
Land
Reforms
Act,
1956-Section
161Exchange of Land-reserved for public
utility-can
not
be
exchanged
with
Bhumidari Land of private personspermissible only when the land is not
covered by Section 132 of the Act.

Held: Para 10

Under Section 132 (VI) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act
it
has
been
provided
that
Bhoomidhari rights shall not accrue in
any land set apart for public purpose
under U.P. Consolidations of Holdings
Act. It is correct that under Section 161
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act exchange of Gaon
Sabha land is permissible. However,
reading
the
said
section
alongwith
Section 132 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act makes it
quite
clear
that
such
exchange
is
permissible only when Gaon Sabha land
sought to be exchanged is not covered
by Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Case law discussed:
1971 R.D. 466
1990 ALJ 366
2 All] Ranvir Singh and another V. The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others 627

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
626
employer hence on the date of filing of
the release application there was no
bonafide need. The appellate court did not
give any weight to the fact that after about
four months of the filing of the release
application landlady's husband was to
retire and in fact retired. Even if need is
considered on the date of filing of the
release application there was no occasion
to deny the release on the ground of
availability of the house provided by the
employer then his position in only that of
tenant and possession of the house as
tenant is not to be considered as an
alternative accommodation available to
the landlord as held by the Supreme Court
in G.K. Devi Versus Ghanshyam Das,
AIR 2000 SC 656. It is only such
occupation of the landlord which is as of
right,
which
can
be
taken
into
consideration
as
an
alternative
accommodation available to the landlord.
If
a
landlord
is
occupying
an
accommodation either as licencee or as a
tenant or as an employee, the same is
irrelevant and cannot be taken into
consideration
while
considering
his
bonafide
need
for
release
of
the
accommodation in the occupation of the
tenant.

4. The judgment and order passed by
the lower appellate court is utterly
erroneous in law, based upon wholly
irrelevant consideration and arrived at by
ignoring
relevant
material
and
circumstances.

Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

5. Judgment and order passed by the
lower appellate court is set-aside and that
of prescribed authority is restored.

 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2005

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33779 of 2002

Ranvir Singh and another
...Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue U.P., Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vivek Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anupam Kulshrestha
Sri K.R. Sirohi
Sri Anuj Kumar
S.C.

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolution
and
Land
Reforms
Act,
1956-Section
161Exchange of Land-reserved for public
utility-can
not
be
exchanged
with
Bhumidari Land of private personspermissible only when the land is not
covered by Section 132 of the Act.

Held: Para 10

Under Section 132 (VI) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act
it
has
been
provided
that
Bhoomidhari rights shall not accrue in
any land set apart for public purpose
under U.P. Consolidations of Holdings
Act. It is correct that under Section 161
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act exchange of Gaon
Sabha land is permissible. However,
reading
the
said
section
alongwith
Section 132 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act makes it
quite
clear
that
such
exchange
is
permissible only when Gaon Sabha land
sought to be exchanged is not covered
by Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Case law discussed:
1971 R.D. 466
1990 ALJ 366
2 All] Ranvir Singh and another V. The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others 627
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. The question involved in this writ
petition is as to whether Gaon Sabha land
reserved for some public purpose (digging
in the instant case) can be exchanged with
Bhumidhari land of a private tenure
holder or not.

2. Land Management Committee,
Mustafabad Tehsil and district Muzaffar
Nagar passed a resolution on 14.1.2000
for exchange of its land reserved in
revenue records for digging (Khudai)
comprised in plot No. 506 and 507 area
0.092
hectares
and
0.010
hectares
respectively with the Bhumidhari land of
Smt. Kamla Devi comprised in plot No.
111 area 0.113 hectares. In the resolution,
it was stated that land of plot No. 111 was
more appropriate to be used as Rasta and
if the said plot was transferred to Gaon
Sabha then it would serve the purpose of
connecting
Rasta
with
Chak
marg
comprised in plot No. 110. S.D.O./Deputy
Collector, Sadar Muzaffar Nagar by order
dated 16.3.2000, allowed the exchange on
the ground that it was in public interest.
The said order was passed in case No. 8
of 2000, Land Management Committee,
Mustafabad versus Kamla Devi.

3. Thereafter Tehsildar filed a report
date 29.5.2000 to the effect that Kamla
Devi had sold plot No. 111 and the name
of the purchaser (Ranvir Singh) had been
mutated in the revenue records hence
exchange order deserved to be set aside.
S.D.O./Deputy Collector, Sadar Muzarrar
Nagar accepted the report of Tehsildar
and set-aside its earlier order dated
6.3.2000 as well as resolution of Land
Management Committee dated 14.1.2000
by his order dated 31.5.2000. Thereafter
Kamla Devi and Ranvir Singh, who had
purchaged the land from her, filed
restoration applications for setting aside
the order dated 31.5.2000. The restoration
applications were rejected by S.D.O. on
31.1.2001.

4. Against the said order two
revisions being revision no. 52 and 53 of
2000-01 were filed. The revisions were
allowed by Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Saharanpur division,
Saharanpur on 11.6.2002 and orders of
the trial court dated 31.5.2000 and
31.1.2001 were set aside. Against the said
order two revisions being revision no. 69
and 70 of 2001-02 were filed before
Board of Revenue, Allahabad. The said
revisions were allowed by Board of
Revenue on 2.8.2002 (even though in the
order word disposed of was used) hence
this writ petition.

5. As far as sale of the property by
Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of Ranveer
Singh, petitioner no. 1 is concerned, in
this regard it has been mentioned in para13 of rejoinder affidavit that sale deed
dated 28.1.2000 executed by Kamla Devi
in favour of Ranveer Singh has been
cancelled by civil court on 30.5.2000.

6. The Board of Revenue has held
that admittedly consolidation operation
had taken place in the village in dispute
and plot nos. 506 and 507 were entered as
Gaon Sabha land meant for digging. The
Board of Revenue placing reliance upon
an authority of this Court reported in 1971
R.D. 466 Lalji Vs. Board of Revenue has
held that public utility land reserved as
such in consolidation operation cannot be
exchanged under Section 161 of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act with the Bhoomidhari land of
private tenure holder.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
628

7. It has been held by this Court in
G.S. Vs. D.D.C. 1990 A.L.J. 366 that land
reserved for artisans to dig out the earth
for preparing earthen ware is also a public
purpose.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has very vehemently argued that the
authority of Lalji Vs. Board of Revenue
does not lay down correct law as under
Section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it is
specifically provided that Gaon Sabha
land
may
be
exchanged
with
the
Bhoomidhari land of a private person.

9. I do not see any reason to doubt
the correctness of the view taken in Lalji's
case and refer the same to Larger Bench.
In the said authority it has clearly been
held that "the Gaon Sabha has no
authority in law to divert the use of land
earmarked for a public purpose."

10. Under Section 132 (VI) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it has been provided
that Bhoomidhari rights shall not accrue
in any land set apart for public purpose
under U.P. Consolidations of Holdings
Act. It is correct that under Section 161 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act exchange of Gaon
Sabha land is permissible. However,
reading the said section alongwith Section
132 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act makes it quite
clear that such exchange is permissible
only when Gaon Sabha land sought to be
exchanged is not covered by Section 132
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

11. Accordingly, there is no error in
the judgment of Board of Revenue
holding that as the land comprised in plot
nos. 506 and 507 was reserved for public
purpose (digging) hence exchange was
not permissible.

Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32158 of 2002

Ajai Kumar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
through Registrar General and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Tiwari
Sri Sada Nand Shukla
Sri Sheo Shanker Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Agrawal
Sri Amit Sthelkar
Sri K.R. Sirohi
S.C.

U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
Establishment Rules, 1947 Rule-14 (3)-
Short term appointment-petitioner being
candidate of waiting list-appointed on
the vacancy caused by a regular Class III
employee
during
the
period
of
supervision-with condition specifically
provided in the appointment letter-that
if the suspended employee reinstatedthe service of petitioner shall come to an
end-after joining of suspended person on
reinstatement-the
termination
order
challenged on ground that under similar
circumstances
another
employee
approached before the administrative
judge and has been regularised-heldextraordinary
powers
can
not
be
exercised for giving parity to an illegal
order- particularly when such illegal
appointee is not before the court-