# Sahab Das Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 639
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1000273 of 2005
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sahab-das-objection-filed-v-additional-commissioner-judicial-lucknow-division-54787
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,815 of 57,764. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39815 for what follows._

3 All. Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
639
 (3) The period prescribed for an appeal shall be computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), with respect to the computation of
periods of limitation thereunder.

 (4) Every appeal under this section shall be made by a petition in writing and shall be

 accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the order appealed against where
such statement has been furnished to the appellant and by such fee as may be prescribed.

 (5) In disposing of an appeal the appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may
be prescribed:

 Provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the appellant has been given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.

 (6) The order appealed against shall, unless the appellate authority conditionally or
unconditionally directs otherwise, be in force pending the disposal of the appeal against such
order.

 (7) Every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying or reversing the order
appealed against shall be final."

9. On bare perusal of Section 18 of the Arms Act, it is evident that against cancellation of
application of arm licence, an appeal lies before the Commissioner. In view of the availability of
alternative remedy to file an appeal against the order impugned this writ petition is not
entertainable in the eyes of law.

10. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner against the order
of the District Magistrate. The Commissioner is however directed to decide the appeal of the
petitioner, expeditiously, in case he files within a period of six months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 639
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1000273 of 2005

Sahab Das Objection Filed ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr. ...Respondents
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to legality of revisional authority's interference with an order recalling an ex parte
decision, in violation of principles of natural justice. It further concerns rights of a Scheduled Caste agricultural
labourer under section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act and protection of his bhumidhari rights
over Gaon Sabha land.

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-U.P. Z.A. & L. R .Act-Section 122-B(4-F)-Recall of exparte order-Validity -Revisional jurisdiciton-Scope-Bhumidhari rights-Gaon Sabha land-The
order recalling an ex-parte decision merely restored opportunity of hearing and did not decide
rights on merits, hence interference by the revisional authority was illegal and without
jurisdiction-Orders, under section 122-B(4-F) are not revisable and confer statutory bhumidhari
rights upon eligible SC/ST agricultural labourers, which cannot be disturbed without due
adjudication-The impugned revisional order quashed and recall order restoring proceedings was
upheld for fresh decision after affording proper opportunity of hearing-Writ petition
allowed.(Para 34 to 44)

Held
The court held that the revisional authority erred in law in interfering with order recalling ex-parte decision,
said recall order merely restored opportunity of hearing and did not adjudicate rights on merits, interference
held violative of principles of natural justice. Further held, orders under Section 122-B(4-F), U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act not amenable to revisional jurisdiction, eligible SC/ST agricultural labourer acquires statutory status of
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Impugned revisional order set aside. Matter remitted for fresh
adjudication. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Manorey @ Manohar Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors (2003) 94 RD 538, Sushila & Ors Vs State of U.P. & Ors
(2015) 129 R.D. 253, Ganga Raman Sharma Vs State of U.P. (2016) 132 RD 251, Brahmanand & Ors Vs State
of U.P. & Ors ( 2019) AHC: 120211, Bhola Vs State of U.P (2022) : AHC 235747-referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950.
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953

List of Keywords
Natural Justice, Ex-parte order, Recall of order, Revisional jurisdiction , Jurisdictional Error, Section 122-B(4F), Bhumidhar with Non-transferable Rights , Gaon Sabha Land, Scheduled Caste Agricultural Labourer,
Regularization of Possession , Violation of Audi Alteram Partem, Restoration of Proceedings, Fresh
Adjudication.

Case Arising From
Civil jurisdiction: WRIT-C No.- 1000273 of 2005
Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
From the judgment and order dated 12.03.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s)
Govind Saran Nigam, Abhisht Saran
Advs. for Respondent(s)
C.S.C., P.k. Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)
3 All. Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
641

 1. Heard Sri Abhisht Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary,
learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2004 passed by respondent No.1 contained as Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a landless agricultural labourer
belonging to Schedule Caste. He is a member of Chamar Community and is in possession of Plot
No. 147/2 M area 0.400 hectares situated at Village Laglesra, Pargana Asiwan Rasoolabad. Tehsil
Hasanganj, District Unnao since before 3rd June of 1995.

4. Plot No. 147/2 is a big plot and is recorded as "Banjar" in revenue records. It belongs to
Gram Panchayat. During consolidation, the aforesaid Plot No. 147/2 has been given new no. 264
Ka area 5.415 hectares. Annexure No. 2 is the true copy of the CH-Form 41 and Annexure No. 3 is
the true copy of the CH-Form 45.

5. In proceedings under Section 122-B of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
when the petitioner claimed benefit by virtue of his possession since before 31 June of 1995, an
enquiry was made and report was obtained from Tehsil which proved the possession of the
petitioner, as such recommendation was made for regularization of his possession and the Pargana
Adhikari, Hasanganj Unnao vide order dated 09.01.1998 accepted the recommendation and granted
benefit to the petitioner under Section 122-B (4-F) as Bhoomidhar with non-transferable rights.
Annexure No.4 is the certified copy of the order-dated 09.01.1998 passed by the Pargana Adhikari,
Hasanganj, Unnao.

6. It will not be out of place to mention here that the opposite party No. 2 is the Ex-Pradhan
of the Village Laglesra. He himself has his jaundiced eyes over the land in question. However,
since he belongs to upper caste and was not entitled to get the land in his name, he was creating
every obstacle in the conferment of rights upon the petitioner.

7. At the time of the aforesaid order of Pargana Adhikari, Hasanganj, Unnao, Smt. Mohini
Gaur wife of Sri Surendra Kumar Gaur - younger brother of the opposite party No. 2, was the
Pradhan. Opposite Party No. 2 thorough her, left no stone unturned to get the aforesaid benefit
upon the petitioner refused. However, he could not be succeeded in his evil designs.

8. Soon after the aforesaid order, opposite party No.2 moved an application for recall of the
aforesaid order dated 09.01.1998 as Ex-Pradhan of Village Laglesra and the Pargana Adhikari,
Hasanganj Unnao vide order dated 18.07.1998 set aside the order dated 09.01.1998 passed by his
predecessor even without any notice to the petitioner and even without providing any opportunity
to him to meet the allegations of the opposite party No.2.

9. After coming to know about the aforesaid order, the petitioner on 19.04.1999, applied
for recall of the same and for providing an opportunity of hearing to him on the application of the
opposite party No.2.
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. On the aforesaid application of the petitioner, a notice was issued to opposite party
No.2 and the Pargana Adhikari after hearing both the parties allowed the same vide order dated
25.09.2003 and recalled his earlier ex-parte order dated 18.07.1998.

11. As has already been submitted above, opposite party No.2 had his jaundiced eyes over
the land in question, as such against the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Pargana
Adhikari, Hasanganj Unnao, he filed a Revision under Section 333 of UP Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow which has been allowed
by the opposite party No.1 vide order dated 10.08.2004. Opposite Party No.1 while allowing the
Revision has totally forget that the order dated 25.09.2003 was simply an order recalling the earlier
order dated 18.07.1998 which was passed ex-parte against the petitioner and by recalling his order,
the application of the opposite party No.2 to recall the order dated 09.01.1998 revived and was to
be disposed off in accordance with the provisions of law after providing an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner.

12. The said order dated 25.09.2003 is not over the merit of the case. However, opposite
party No.1 even without taking into consideration that by recalling the earlier order dated
18.07.1998 the Pargana Adhikari has simply provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
against whom the said order was passed without any notice to him and for all intents and purposes
it was an ex-parte order.

13. The opposite party No.1 while setting aside the order dated 25.09.2003 and by
specifically observing that the order dated 15.07.1998 shall remain in force has deprived the
petitioner from his right to contest the move of the opposite party No.2 and protect the legality and
proprietary of the order dated 09.01.1998.

14. It will be pertinent to mention here that opposite party No.2 has no locus-standi in the
matter. He cannot claim any right in the land in question not can challenge the order of the Pargana
Adhikari under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. His
Application to recall the order dated 09.01.1998 is highly misconceived

15. It will be further pertinent to mention here that the Village is under consolidation
operations. The opposite party No.2 due to his maneuvering tactics, managed to obtain an order
dated 17.05.1995 from the Consolidation Officer in his favour. However, the Gram Samaj filed an
appeal against the aforesaid order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1995 before the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, Unnao - Appeal No. 1431/918 under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act and the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 28.01.1998 has set
aside the aforesaid order with the direction that the land will remain recorded in the name of Gaon
Sabha.

16. Opposite party No.2 filed revision against the aforesaid order of Settlement Officer
Consolidation and the matter is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao.

17. Opposite party No.1 has allowed the Revision only on the ground that the order dated
18.7.1998 is on merits even without looking into the fact that the same is ex-parte and has been
3 All. Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
643
passed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to place his submission against the
application of the opposite party No. 2.

18. Opposite Party No.2 is bent upon to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question
even by adopting unlawful means and in case he is succeeded in his evil design, the petitioner will
suffer irreparable loss.

19. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional authority has
acted in excess of jurisdiction by setting aside the lawful order dated 25.09.2003 passed by the
Pargana Adhikari, Hasanganj, District Unnao. The order dated 25.09.2003 merely recalled an
earlier ex-parte order dated 18.07.1998 and restored the matter for decision on merits after
affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

20. He further submitted that the revisional authority failed to appreciate that no
adjudication on merits had taken place on 25.09.2003 and the order only restored principles of
natural justice, therefore, interference in the revision was unwarranted. Consequently, the
impugned order is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

21. He next submitted that the ex-parte order dated 18.07.1998 had been passed without
issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to contest the recall
application filed by opposite Party No.2. The Pargana Adhikari rightly corrected this illegality by
recalling the ex-parte order on 25.09.2003 after hearing both parties. However, the revisional
authority restored the ex-parte order, thereby depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to be
heard. It is settled law that any order passed without hearing the affected party is void and nonest.

22. He submitted that the petitioner is a landless agricultural labourer belonging to
Scheduled Caste and has been in possession of the land in question since prior to 3 June 1995.
After due enquiry, the competent authority granted him benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act vide order dated 09.01.1998, declaring him
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. This conferment of rights was based on official
verification and cannot be lightly disturbed. The revisional authority failed to consider the
petitioner's statutory protection as a landless Scheduled Caste cultivator.

23. He submitted that the land in dispute is recorded as Banjar and belongs to the Gaon
Sabha. Opposite Party No.2 has no legal right, title, or interest in the said land. Being merely an exPradhan, he cannot challenge the conferment of rights upon the petitioner. His recall application
was therefore misconceived and not maintainable.

24. He submitted that opposite party No.2 has been persistently attempting to dispossess
the petitioner despite lacking any legal claim. His actions are motivated and intended to grab Gaon
Sabha land through unlawful means. Even during consolidation proceedings, attempts were made
to obtain favourable orders, which were later set aside in appeal, directing that the land remain
recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The pattern of conduct demonstrates abuse of process of law.
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. He further submitted that the revisional authority proceeded on the erroneous
assumption that the order dated 18.07.1998 was passed on merits. In fact, the order was ex-parte
and passed without notice to the petitioner. Restoration of such an order defeats justice and
perpetuates illegality.

26. He submitted that the petitioner is a landless person whose livelihood depends upon the
land. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, the petitioner will be dispossessed without
adjudication on merits, however, balance of convenience and equity lie entirely in favour of the
petitioner. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

 a) Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others; 2003 (94) RD 538.

 b) Sushila and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; (2015) 129 R.D.253.

 c) Ganga Raman Sharma Vs. State of U.P.; (2016) 132 RD 251.

 d) Brahmanand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2019: AHC:120211.
 e) Bhola Vs. State of U.P.; 2022: AHC:235747

27. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State submitted that the
petitioner claims eligibility for regularization under Section 122-B 4(F) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms (Z.A. & L.R.) Act. However, this claim is predicated on a forged and
concocted report submitted by the then Area Lekhpal in 1998. The order dated 09.01.1998 passed
by the Pargana Adhikari, which initially regularized the land, was passed without any enquiry and
without any documentary evidence of the petitioners possession prior to the cutoff date of
03.06.1995. The said order was rightfully cancelled by the Pargana Adhikari on 18.07.1998 after a
proper enquiry revealed the falsity of the Lekhpals report. Departmental proceedings were also
initiated against the Lekhpal, Ram Khelawan for submitting an irregular report.

28. He submitted that the land in question (Gata No. 147/2 Min., area 0.400 Hectare,
Village Laglesara) was already reserved for Jwala Devi Bal Vidya Mandir vide an order dated
17.05.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer. As the land was already reserved for a
public/educational purpose prior to the statutory cutoff date for regularization, the petitioner could
not have acquired any legal right over the said property.

29. He submitted that the petitioner has consistently engaged in delayed litigation. The
restoration application filed by the petitioner on 19.04.1999 was significantly time-barred. The
lower court (Pargana Adhikari) erred in law by allowing this restoration on 25.09.2003 without
condoning the delay and without recording any specific findings, which is a violation of settled
legal principles. However, the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, correctly set aside this
flawed order via order dated 10.08.2004, which is the subject of the present challenge.

30. He submitted that the petitioner was never in actual physical possession of the land.
There is no entry in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1402 Fasli to indicate the petitioners possession
3 All. Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
645
prior to 03.06.1995. To claim rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it was mandatory for the
petitioner to file a declaratory suit under Section 229(B), which the petitioner failed to do.

31. He lastly submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has
an efficacious alternative remedy. Under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the petitioner
ought to have approached the Board of Revenue by filing a revision instead of invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Honble Court. In light of aforesaid facts that the petitioner has
approached this Honble Court with "unclean hands" and that the impugned order of the
Additional Commissioner is legally sound, it is most respectfully prayed that the writ petition be
dismissed with exemplary costs and the interim order obtained by misleading this Honble Court
be vacated in the interest of justice.

32. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the law reports cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

33. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are being quoted below:

 a) Manorey @ Manohar (Supra):

 6. To appreciate the issue, the reference to Section 122-B is necessary. The said section
prescribes the procedure for eviction of a person wrongfully occupying or damaging or
misappropriating the property vested in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority. The Land Management
Committee or local authority, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector and
thereupon the Assistant Collector should issue notice to the person concerned to show cause. If the
Assistant Collector is not satisfied with the explanation, he may direct eviction by using force, if
necessary, and may further direct that compensation be recovered from such person as arrears of
land revenue. The person aggrieved has a right of revision to the Collector and he can also file a
suit to establish his right. Sub-section (4-F) is the crucial provision which at the relevant time read
as follows:

 "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 30-6-1985 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."

 8. 8. First, the endeavour should be to analyse and identify the nature of the right or
protection conferred by sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B. Sub-sections (1) to (3) and the
ancillary provisions up to sub-section (4-E) deal, inter alia, with the procedure for eviction of
unauthorised occupants of land vested in the Gaon Sabha. Sub-section (4-F) carves out an
exception in favour of an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having land below the ceiling of 3.125 acres. Irrespective of the circumstances in which such
eligible person occupied the land vested in the 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 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 subsections (1) to (3) of Section 122-B. It means that the occupant of the land who satisfies the
conditions under sub-section (4-F) is entitled to safeguard his possession as against the Gaon
Sabha. The second and more important right which sub-section (4-F) confers on him is that he is
endowed with the rights of a bhumidhar with non-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 non-transferable 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 sub-section (4-F) is one such right that falls within the
purview of Section 131(b).

 9. Thus, sub-section (4-F) 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. 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 v. Board of
Revenue [1994 RD 388] (followed by the same learned Judge in the instant case) that the
bhumidhari rights of the occupant contemplated by sub-section (4-F) 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 (4-F) 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 (4-F) 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 (4-F) of Section 122-B. 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 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 (4-F) 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
3 All. Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
647
bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read with other provisions. In a way, sub-section (4-F)
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 (4-F). We find
no warrant to constrict the scope of the deeming provision.

 10. 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 (4-F) to effect necessary changes
in the revenue record. When once the claim of the applicant is accepted, it is the bounden duty of
the Revenue Authorities concerned 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 (4-F). 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 the Gaon Sabha had created
leasehold rights in favour of the respondents herein is of no consequence. Such lease, in the face of
the statutory right of the appellant, is non est in the eye of the law and is liable to be ignored.

 11. It is surprising that the State of U.P. had chosen to file an appeal against the order of
the SDO, in tandem with the Gaon Sabha. It seems to be a clear case of non-application of mind on
the part of the authorities concerned of the State who are supposed to effectuate the socioeconomic objective of the legislation.

 12. The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court are
set aside. The SDO's order is restored. No costs."

 b) Sushila and others (Supra):

 "4. Sub-section (4F) of section 122-B has been construed and interpreted in a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manorey alias Manohar v. Board of Revenue (U.P.)1. The
Supreme Court held that sub-section (4-F) 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 (4-F) 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 sub-section (4-F) 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.

 5. 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 (4-F) of section 122-B. Sub-sections (1) to (3) and the ancillary
provisions upto sub-section (4-E) deal inter alia, with the procedure for eviction of unauthorized
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occupants of land vested in Gaon Sabha. Sub-section (4-F) 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 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 subsection (1) to (3) of section 122-B. It means that
the occupant of the land who satisfies the conditions under sub-section (4-F) is entitled to
safeguard his possession as against the Gaon Sabha. The second and more important right which
sub-section (4- F) confers on him is that he is endowed with the rights of a Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights. The deeming provision has been specifically enacted as a measure of agrarian
reform, with a thrust on socioeconomic justice. The statutorily conferred right of Bhumidhar with
non-transferable 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 (4-F) is one such right that falls within the purview of section 131(b)."

 6. The Supreme Court also held that sub-section (4-F) is not merely, a shield to protect
the possession of a person who fulfils the conditions in subsection (4-F) but it also confers a
positive right of being recognized as Bhumidhar on the occupant satisfying the conditions and
criteria laid down in the subsection.

 7. The Supreme Court has held thus:

 "Thus, sub-section (4-F) 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 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 (4-F) 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 (4-F) 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 (4-F). We find no warrant to constrict the scope of deeming provision.
3 All. Sahab Das Objection Filed Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division & Anr.
649
 8. Sub-section (4-A) of section 122-B provides a remedy of revision where an order has
been passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-sections (3) or (4) of section 122-B. Sub-section
(3) envisages an order of eviction by the Assistant Collector where the person to whom a notice has
been issued under sub-section (2) has failed to show cause or if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient. Sub-section (3) also provides for a direction that compensation be awarded in respect
of any damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation; the amount being recoverable as
arrears of land revenue. Sub-section (4) provides for the discharge of a notice issued under subsection (2) where the Assistant Collector is of the opinion that the person showing cause is not
guilty of causing damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation. The remedy of a revision
under sub-section (4-A) of section 122-B is available only in respect of an order which is passed
under subsections (3) or (4). Sub-section (4-F) of section 122-B is an independent provision by
which an exception has been carved out in favour of agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes subject to the satisfaction of the conditions which have been imposed
by the statute. No remedy of a revision is provided in respect of an order under section 122-B (4F).

 9. The learned Single Judge was, with respect, in error in coming to the conclusion that
the remedy of a. re vision is available in respect of an order which has been passed by the Assistant
Collector under section 122-B (4-F). By the plain terms of the statutory provision made in subsection (4-A), such a remedy has been made available only in respect of an order under subsections (3) or (4). The remedy of a revision is a creature of the statute. The revisional authority
cannot expand its own jurisdiction where a statutory provision has not provided such a recourse.

 14. The second schedule provides inter alia sections, a description of proceedings, Courts
of original jurisdiction and Courts of first and second appeal. No appeal is provided in respect of
an order passed under section 122-B, including against an order under section 122-B (4-F).
Consequently, it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that a remedy of a revision would not be
available under section 333 against an order which has been passed under subsection (4-F) of
section 122-B.

 15. For these reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy.

 16. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 25 August, 2015. Writ Petition No. 4794 (M/S) of 2015 shall,
accordingly, stand restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh on merits."

 c) Ganga Raman Sharma (Supra):

 Ganga Raman Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Others A Division bench of this court in the
case of Shushila and another vs. State of U.P. and others being Special Appeal No. 479 of 2015
decided on 29.9.2015 has held that an order passed under section 122B (4F) of the Act is not
revisable. In view of the fact that the order passed under section 122B(4F) itself is not revisable
therefore any order passed on the restoration application seeking recall of the order passed under
section 122B (4F) is also not revisable therefore in my opinion the order passed by the Revisional
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court, against the order allowing restoration application, is without jurisdiction. it is also well
settled that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and

 no legal consequences can flow such orders. Reference may be made to the decisions of
the Apex Court in Dr. (Smt.) Kuntush Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya,
Sitapur and others, AIR 198 SC2186, Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs.Usman Abbas Sayyad and others,
AIR 2007 SC 1077, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) LRs. and anr. vs. B.D. Agarwal and others, AIR
2003 SC 2686, Thankamma vs. State of Kerala and others, 1982 KLJ 309, Shakuntla Devi vs.
Kamla and others, 2005 (3) ALD 118 (SC), Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing
Organization Vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 619, Sarup Singh and another vs.
Union of India and another (2011) 11 SCC 198.

 Therefore pending restoration application, filing of fresh writ petition will not be fatal as
question of jurisdiction goes to the root of matter and it can be raised and examined at any stage of
proceedings before any court."

 d) Brahmanand and others (Supra):

 "9. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions it is quite explicit that 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 non-transferable 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 SubDivisional 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.