# Sayyed Abbas v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1095
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 88 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sayyed-abbas-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49263
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Ashish
Verma,
Rajeiu
Kumar
Tripathi

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna
Act, 1952 - Sections 14(10) & 15-A - The
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 3(4) -
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section
14 r/w Section 14-A, 15 - Limitation
Act, 1963 - Sections 5 & 137 - Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122,
123, 126 & 127 - Patta - Cancellation
of - Validity - Patta was initially
granted to minor under Grants dated
19.06.1982
and
02.09.1985
under
Section 16 of Act No. 10 of 1953 -
However, minor does not qualify as
landless agricultural labourer or tiller
under Act, as they lack independent
agricultural
capacity
or
soil
attachment - Therefore, grants were
contrary
to
object
and
spirit
of
Bhoodan
Yagna
Movement
and
provision of Act, according to which
grant shall be made in accordance with
scheme of Bhoodan Yagan Samiti, thus
it was in violation of law, deemed to be
void ab initio. (Para 43)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,980 of 80,347. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39980 for what follows._

10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1095
present case. It is for this reason that the
Consolidation Officer thought of classifying the
petitioner as an occupier without title, when
there is no one already recorded in column 4 of
the khasra. The Settlement Officer of
Consolidation thought that the petitioner having
no semblance of title, ought not to be
acknowledged at all. Both opinions are possible
and we think that the Settlement Officer's
choice was better in disregarding the petitioner's
possession altogether, there being no semblance
of a right or title attached to it. Even if both
were lawful courses to adopt, it is not this
Court's province under Article 226 of the
Constitution to choose, which would be the
better one, unless there is a violation of the law.
Here, there is none.

43. In the opinion of this Court, no case
for interference with the impugned orders,
passed by the three Authorities below
concurrently, is made out in the exercise of our
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.

44. This petition fails and is dismissed.
Costs easy.

45. The interim stay order is hereby
vacated.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1095
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ-C No. 88 of 2023

Sayyed Abbas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Ashish
Verma,
Rajeiu
Kumar
Tripathi

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna
Act, 1952 - Sections 14(10) & 15-A - The
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 3(4) -
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section
14 r/w Section 14-A, 15 - Limitation
Act, 1963 - Sections 5 & 137 - Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122,
123, 126 & 127 - Patta - Cancellation
of - Validity - Patta was initially
granted to minor under Grants dated
19.06.1982
and
02.09.1985
under
Section 16 of Act No. 10 of 1953 -
However, minor does not qualify as
landless agricultural labourer or tiller
under Act, as they lack independent
agricultural
capacity
or
soil
attachment - Therefore, grants were
contrary
to
object
and
spirit
of
Bhoodan
Yagna
Movement
and
provision of Act, according to which
grant shall be made in accordance with
scheme of Bhoodan Yagan Samiti, thus
it was in violation of law, deemed to be
void ab initio. (Para 43)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. B.R. Nangia Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011
SCC OnLine All 1013, (Paras 7 to 18)

2.
Sahara
India
(Firm),
Lucknow
Vs
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I &
anr.; reported in (2008) 14 SCC 151

3. Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District &
anr. Vs D. Narsing Rao & ors.; reported in
(2015) 3 SCC 695

4. K. Balakrishnan Vs K. Kamalam & ors. along
with K. Kamalam vs. K. Balakrishnan & ors.;
reported in (2004) 1 SCC 581
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Brahm Singh Vs Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Allahabad & ors.; reported in 2008 SCC OnLine
All 490

6. Seetla Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; reported in 2019
SCC OnLine All 4784

7. U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, U.P. Vs Braj
Kishore & ors.; reported in (1988) 4 SCC 274
(Paras 3 to 16)

8. Bahraich Deen Vs Board of Revenue & ors.;
reported in 2008 SCC OnLine All 2079 (Paras 7
to 10)

9. Employees' St. Insurance Corp. & ors. Vs
Jardine
Henderson
Staff
Assoc.
&
ors.,
MANU/SC/3424/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 2767

10. Ramnik Lal N. Bhutta & anr. Vs St. of Mah.,
MANU/SC/0279/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 1236

11. Amrendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
MANU/UP/1480/2007 : 2008(1) ADJ 397 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.
)

1.

Heard
Sri
Rakesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the State as also Sri
Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the opposite party No.4.

2. By means of present petition,
the petitioner has challenged the order
28.12.2022 passed by the opposite party
No.2-Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur
in Case No.2714 of 2022, Computerized
Case No.D202204680002714 (State vs.
Sayeed Abbas), which was instituted under
Section 15-A of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 (in short "U.P. Act No.10
of 1953"), whereby, the Grant/Patta dated
19.06.1982 related to Plot No.1178 M area
1 Biswa and 15 Biswansi, and Grant/Patta
dated 02.09.1985 related to Plot No.1178
M area 5 Biswansi, situate at VillageGoravarik
Pargana-Meeranpur,
TehsilSadar,
District-Sultanpur,
has
been
cancelled.

3. Before entering into the merits
of the case, I feel it appropriate to
indicate that on 18.08.2023 the final
order was dictated in open Court.
However,
on
account
of
some
confusion, at the time of signing of
final
order,
regarding
disposal
of
application seeking amendment, the
case was again ordered to be listed vide
order dated 18.08.2023 and thereafter
on 15.09.2023, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, the judgment
was reserved.

4. Undisputed facts of the case are
to the effect that the petitioner was
minor, at the time of Grant(s), in issue,
dated
19.06.1982
and
02.09.1985,
respectively, which have been cancelled
by the impugned order dated 28.12.2022.
In particular, the petitioner was aged about
12 years old, at the time of providing first
Grant dated 19.06.1982 and at the time
of Grant dated 02.09.1985, he was 15
years old.

5. The property/land, in issue, was
provided by virtue of these Grant(s)
under the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953,
which was promulgated for specific
purpose.

6. The part of property i.e. 1
Biswa obtained under the Act No.10 of
1953 was transferred through sale deed
dated 17.07.2012 to Rehana Begum
W/o Intzaar and on 05.02.2022 rest part
of property i.e. 1 Biswa, was transferred
to Ishratulla S/o Shahadatulla and Mohd.
Khaleeq S/o Tahir Khan.
10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1097

7. At this stage, this Court finds it
appropriate to refer the judgment of this
Court passed in the case of B.R. Nangia vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2011 SCC
OnLine All 1013; wherein this Court, after
considering the aims and objects as also the
relevant provision of U.P. Act No.10 of
1953, observed that the grantee shall not be
entitled to sublet or transfer the land and
cannot use the land for the purpose other
than it was granted. The relevant paras of
the report are as under:-

"7. Before coming to the question
of non-observance of principle of natural
justice, the pure legal question with respect
to application of section 131-B of Act, 1950
in respect to land governed by 1952 Act, I
find it appropriate to deal with this issue
first since it is a pure question of law and
needs to be clarified by this Court.

8. Act, 1952 was enacted to
facilitate donation of land in connection
with the Bhoodan Yagna initiated by
Acharya Vinoba Bhave and to provide for
settling of such land on the landless
persons. The statute was enacted realizing
certain difficulties faced in respect to
donation of land by the persons having
agricultural land in view of certain
provisions of Act, 1950 and to overcome
such difficulties. The statement of objects
and reasons published with Act, 1952 in
U.P.
Gazette,
Extraordinary,
dated
21.11.1952 reads as under:

"In the last cold weather Acharya
Vinoba Bhave started the Bhoodan Yagna
movement with a view to obtain land so
that it could be distributed among the
landless persons of the State. The response
of the people of the State was very
encouraging. The Zamindars as well as the
tenants donated their land to Acharyaji.
There
were,
however,
certain
legal
difficulties. The donations made by the
zamindars were defective according to the
provisions of section 28 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The
tenants did not possess any right to transfer
their lands by gift. The Bill is intended to
remove these and certain other legal
difficulties and to ensure the achievements
of the object of this movement. Both in
regard to the donations of land to the
Bhoodan Yagna and its distribution to the
landless persons".

9. The
Act
contemplates
establishment and incorporation of a
Committee,
namely,
Bhoodan
Yagna
Committee under State of U.P. (hereinafter
referred to as "Bhoodan Committee")
having perpetual succession, a body
corporate, vested with the capacity to sue
and being sued in its corporate names
acquiring, holding, administering and
transferring property, both movable and
immovable and entering into contracts. The
constitution of Bhoodan Committee and
other details are contained in sections 4, 5
and 6 of 1952 Act. The duties of the
Committee are contained in section 7,
which reads as under:

"7. Duties of the Committee.-(1)
It shall be the duty of the Committee to
administer all lands vested in it for the
benefit of the Bhoodan Yagna.

(2) The Committee shall for the
purpose of Bhoodan Yagna perform such
other functions and possess such other
powers as may be necessary in respect of
such land."

10. The land which is donated
and is governed by Act, 1952 after such
donation is completely vest in "Bhoodan
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee" by virtue of sections 11(4) and
13(3)(a) of Act, 1952. When Bhoodan
Committee or Collector, as the case may
be, grant land to landless persons, rights
conferred upon such person are provided
in sections 14 and 15 of 1952 Act which
read as under:

"14. Grant of land to landless
persons.-(1) The Committee or such other
authority or person as the Committee with
the approval of the State Government,
specify either generally or in respect of any
area, may, in the manner prescribed, grant
lands which have vested in it to the landless
agricultural labourers and the grantee of
the land shall:

(i) where the land is situate in
any state which has vested in State
Government under and in accordance with
section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, acquire in
such land the right and the liabilities of a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
and the grantee of the land shall;

(ii) where it is situate in any other
area, acquire therein such rights and
liabilities and subject to such conditions,
restrictions and limitations as may be
prescribed and shall have effect, any law to
the contrary notwithstanding.

(2) Where the Committee or other
authority or person as aforesaid fails to
grant any land in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of three years
from the date of vesting of such land in the
Committee
or
from
the
date
of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975,
whichever is later, the Collector may
himself grant such land to the landless
agricultural labourers in the manner
prescribed, and thereupon the grantee shall
acquire the rights and liabilities mentioned
in sub-section (1) as if the grant were made
by the Committee himself.

(3) Omitted

(4) In making grant of land under
this section, the committee or other
authority or persona as aforesaid or the
Collector, as the case may be, shall observe
the following principles:

(a) At least fifty per cent of the
land available for grant shall be granted to
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging to
the
Kol,
Pathari,
Khairwar,
Baiga,
Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and
such other tribes as the State Government
on the recommendations of the Committee
may notify in this behalf;

(b) The land situate in one village
shall, as far as possible, be granted to
persons residing in that very village.

Explanation.-For the purpose of
this section, the expression "landless
agricultures labourer" means a person
whose main source of livelihood is
agriculture labour or cultivation and who
at the relevant time either holds no land or
holds lands not exceeding 0.40468564
hectares (one acre) in Uttar Pradesh as a
bhumidhar, asami or Government lessee.

15. Grants to be made in
accordance
with
Bhoodan
Yagna
Scheme.-All grants shall be made as far
as may be in accordance with the scheme
of Bhoodan Yagna.

11. A grant made under Act, 1952
can be cancelled in certain contingencies
10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1099
as provided in section 15-A, which reads as
under:

15-A. Cancellation of certain
grants.-(1) The Collector may of his own
motion and shall on the report of the
Committee or on the application of any
person aggrieved by the grant of any land
made under section 14, whether before or
after the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act,
1975, inquire into such grant, and if he is
satisfied that the grant was irregular or
was
obtained
by
the
grantee
by
misrepresentation or fraud, he may:

(i) cancel the grant, and on such
cancellation,
notwithstanding
anything
contained in section 14 or in any other law
for the time being in force, the rights, title
and interest of the grantee or any person
claiming through him in such land shall
cease, and the land shall revert to the
Committee; and

(ii) direct delivery of possession
of such land to the Committee after
ejectment of every person holding or
retaining possession thereof, and may for
that purpose use or cause to be used such
force as may be necessary.

(2) Notice of every proceeding
under sub-section (1) shall be given to the
committee, and any representation made by
the Committee in relation thereto shall be
taken into consideration by the Collector.

(3) No order shall be passed
under sub-section (1) except after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the grantee
or any person known to the Collector to be
claiming under him.

(4) The order of the Collector
passed under sub-section (1) shall be final
and conclusive.

12. Act, 1950, in essence, has not
been made applicable to Act, 1952 in its
entirety to the land governed by Act, 1950.
Therefore, all the provisions of Act, 1950
cannot be applied to the grant of land
governed by Act, 1952 ipso facto.

13. Further, section 17 of Act,
1952 confers power upon the State
Government to make Rules for the purpose
of carrying into effect the provisions of the
Act. Sub-section 2 (k) says specifically that
Rules may provide for the matters relating
to the land in pursuance of section 14.

14. In
purported
exercise
of
power under section 17 of Act, 1952, U.P.
Bhoodan Yagna Rules, 1953 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 1953") has been
framed.

15. Rule 3 provides that after
grant of land by the Bhoodan Committee to
a grantee, the grantee as also the land
which is subject of the grant shall, subject
to the provisions of the Act, be governed by
the prevailing law relating to land-tenure.

16. This makes it clear that Act,
1950 would apply to the land governed by
Act, 1952 but subject to Act, 1952. Rule 14
(2) provides two aspects, firstly in respect
to the land to which Act, 1950 does not
apply. It says that the grantee shall acquire
such rights and liabilities as the Bhoodan
Committee may confer under the law. In
general, for all grantees it says that the
grantee shall be subject to the following
conditions, restrictions and limitations:
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) the grantee shall pay the rent
to the Committee in such instalments and
on such dates as the Committee may
specify;

(ii) the grantee shall not be
entitled to sublet or transfer the land; and

(iii) the grantee shall not be
entitled to use the land for any purpose
other than for which it was granted.

17. Therefore, it is very much
clear under the Rules also that grantee
shall not be entitled to sublet or transfer
the land and cannot use it for the purpose
other than it was granted.

18. In
the
circumstances,
in
absence of anything to show that Act, 1950
had overriding effect over the Act, 1952, it
cannot be said that land once granted by
means of grant by Committee would be
governed by the provisions of Act, 1950 in
all
respect
including
section
131-B
ignoring the provisions of Act, 1952."

8. It is also not in dispute that after
allotment of land, in issue, the application
dated 15.12.1983 for cancellation of Patta
was preferred by one Ganga Deen S/o Ram
Udit impleading the present petitioner as
also Bhoodan Samiti, Sultanpur and this
application was registered as Case No.238
under Section 15-A of the U.P. Act No.10
of 1953 and was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 11.03.1993
passed by the Opposite party No.2. The
order dated 11.03.1993 on reproduction
reads as under:-

"dqN le; esa vUrj ls dbZ ckj iqdkj
djkus ds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr
ugha gqvkA vr% Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ vius }kjk
fn;k x;k iV~Vk fujLrhdj.k izkFkZuk i= esa cy
ugha nsuk pkgrk gSA ,slh n'kk esa bl dk;Zokgh
dks tkjh j[kus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS] rn~uqlkj
izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA bl dk;kZy; esa
dfFkr iV~Vs ds xq.k&nks"k gsrq nk;j vU; fdlh
okn esa ;g vkns'k js'ktqMhdsVk dk izHkko ugha
j[ksxkA vkns'k dh izfr lEcaf/kr ijxukf/kdkjh dks
bl vk'k; ls izsf"kr dh tk; fd og bl ckr dk
ijh{k.k djk ysa fd foi{kh dks gq, dfFkr iV~Vs dh
dk;Zokgh esa ;fn izFke n`"V;k dksbZ vfu;ferrk gS
rks iV~Vs ds fujLrhdj.k gsrq Lofoosd ls dk;Zokgh
djus gsrq vk[;k izsf"kr djsaA"

9. A perusal of the order dated
11.03.1993, quoted above, shows that the
opposite party No.2 directed the official
subordinate to him to send a copy of the
order dated 11.03.1993 to S.D.M., Sadar,
Sultanpur, for the purposes of submitting a
report for cancellation of Grant, in issue, if
upon enquiry it appears that the same was
not granted in accordance with the U.P. Act
No.10 of 1953. It appears from the record
that the direction in the order dated
11.03.1993 was not carried out.

10. Thereafter, one Mohd. Khaleeq
Khan (opposite party No.4) preferred an
application
on
11.08.2022
(Annexure
No.10 to the petition) before Opposite party
No.2 for the purposes of compliance of the
order dated 11.03.1993, as appears from the
application itself. Relevant part of the same
is extracted herein as under:-

"izkFkZuk i= ckor vuqikyu djk;s
tkus vkns'k fnukad 11-3-93 okn la0238 /kkjk
15d Hkwnku lfefr ,sDV U;k;ky; lh0vkj0vks0
egksn; lqyrkuiqj ekStk xksjkokfjd ijxuk
ehjkuiqj rglhy lnj ftyk lqyrkuiqj

xaxknhu cuke lbZn vCckl"

11. From the application preferred by
the opposite party No.4 dated 11.08.2022 it
further reflects that the opposite party No.4
10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1101
sought a prayer for cancellation of Patta.
The prayer sought in the application is as
under:-

"अतः श्रीमान जी से वनिेदन है वक गाटा सां०
1178 रकबा 2 वबस्िा से कवथत पट्टा िहक सईद अब्बास ना०
12 ििज सुत असगर अब्बास सावकन गोरािाररक परगना मीरानपुर
तहसील सदर वजला सुल्तानपुर खाररज वकया जािे और आराजी
पूिजित् ग्राम सभा के खाते में अांवकत करने की कृपा करें।"

12. On coming to know from the
aforesaid application of opposite party
No.4 that Grant(s) dated 19.06.1982 and
02.09.1985, respectively, were provided to
a minor (petitioner) under the U.P. Act
No.10 of 1953, the opposite party No.2Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur, called a
detailed report and in response to the same,
the inquiry report dated 22.08.2022 was
submitted before the opposite party No.2
and based upon the same, the opposite
party No.2 in exercise of power vested
under Section 15-A of the U.P. Act
No.10 of 1953, instituted a case for
cancellation of Grant(s)/Patta(s).

13. The case instituted under
Section 15-A of the U.P. Act No.10 of
1953, was registered as Case No.2714
of
2022,
Computerized
Case
No.D202204680002714
(State
vs.
Sayeed Abbas) and in this case the
petitioner put in appearance and filed
the objection, which has been annexed
as Annexure No.11 to the present
petition.

14. In the case before opposite
party No.2, one Rehana Begum also put
in appearance and indicated the fact that
her name was recorded on the basis of
sale deed executed by the petitioner.
The objection of Rehana Begum also
indicates that in the Khatauni related to
Fasli Year 1391-1396, the land was
recorded in the name of Bhoodan Yagna
Samiti.

15. A perusal of Annexure No.11 to
the present petition reflects that the
objection was also filed by Sayeed Abbas,
Ishrat Ulla and Khalid in relation to
application of Mohd. Khaleeq Khan based
upon which the case was instituted by the
opposite party No.2 in exercise of power
under Section 15-A of the U.P. Act No.10
of 1953 and a perusal of para 16 of this
objection reflects that based upon the
deed(s) executed in favour of petitioner, the
pleas in defense were taken. Further, in
relation to the report dated 22.08.2022 joint
objection was filed, a copy of which is
annexed as Annexure No.14 to the present
petition.

16. Petitioner and other named
persons took specific plea that Gift Deed
was executed and not the Patta, as such, the
proceedings are unsustainable in the eye of
law.

17. The plea of limitation was also
taken, as appears from Annexure No.15,
wherein, it has specifically been stated that
after about
40
years
the
case for
cancellation of Patta under Section 15-A of
the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 has been
instituted and as such is highly time barred
and liable to be dropped as the limitation
prescribed for cancellation of Gift Deed is
four years.

18. In the aforesaid background of the
case, present petition has been filed
impeaching the order dated 28.12.2022
passed by the opposite party No.2.

19. The submissions of Sri Rakesh
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner assailing the order impugned
dated 28.12.2022 can be summarized as
under:-

(i) The power vested in Section
15-A of the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 can
only be exercised by the Collector of the
district and in the instant case, this power
has been exercised by the Chief Revenue
Officer, District-Sultanpur, as such, the
order impugned is nullity being passed by
an incompetent authority.

(ii) Under Section 15-A of the
U.P. Act No. 10 of 1953, the Collector may
on his own motion and shall on the report
of the Committee or on the application of
any person aggrieved by the grant of any
land made under Section 14 of the U.P. Act
No. 10 of 1953 first is to inquire into such
grant and if he is satisfied that the grant
was irregular or was obtained by the
grantee by mis-representation or fraud,
then, only he may cancel the grant.
Whereas
in
the
instant
case,
the
proceedings
were
initiated
on
the
application of one Mohd. Khaleeq Khan
(opposite party No.4), who was not at all
aggrieved person, as such, the proceedings
ought not to have been initiated nor could
be decided against the petitioner as has
been done by the impugned order dated
28.12.2022.

(iii) The Collector can exercise
power under Section 15-A of the U.P. Act
No. 10 of 1953 but for the same, the report
of Committee, as referred in Section 3 read
with Section 4 of the U.P. Act No. 10 of
1953, is required. For suo-moto exercise of
power, the report is must as expression
"and"
has
been
used
between
two
expressions namely "Collector may of his
own motion" and "shall on the report of
Committee". In this case, there is no report
of the Committee, as such, the power
exercised by the Authority concerned is
unjustified. Further, the satisfaction in
terms of Section 15-A the U.P. Act No.10
of 1953 in the order has also not been
recorded, which is mandatory, as per the
language of the said provision.

(iv) In the instant case, the
Collector has not inquired into the
Grant(s)/Gift Deed(s), in issue. It is the
opposite
party
No.2-Chief
Revenue
Officer, Sultanpur, who got the report from
the revenue official subordinate to it and
proceeded in the matter and subsequently
passed the order impugned, as such, the
procedure as prescribed under Section 15-A
of the U.P. Act No. 10 of 1953 has not been
followed. Thus, also the order impugned is
liable to be interfered with by this Court.

(v) It is settled principle of law
that mode and manner prescribed has to be
followed else the order would be vitiated.
Reference has been made to the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case
of Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I
And Another; reported in (2008) 14 SCC
151.

(vi)
No
irregularity
was
committed while providing the Grant(s) as
the Committee was constituted for the same
purpose and the Committee took decision
and in terms of decision of the Committee,
the land was provided through the
Grant(s)/Gift Deed(s). As such also the
cancellation of Grant(s), at this belated
stage i.e. after about 40 years, is
unsustainable in the eye of law.

(vii) The learned counsel for the
petitioner based upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of
10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1103
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and
Another vs. D. Narsing Rao and Others;
reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 also stated
that suo-moto power could be exercised
within a period of three years.

(viii) In the entire order, the
opposite party No.2 has not dealt with the
plea of limitation specifically raised in the
objection preferred by the petitioner in its
true spirit.

(ix)
The
notice
of
every
proceedings, as per Sub-section 2 Section
15-A, should be given to the Committee
and in the instant case, neither the
Committee was impleaded as party nor any
notice was issued to it. Thus, this
mandatory provision was also not followed
and accordingly, in this view of the matter
alone, the order impugned is liable to be set
aside.

(x) There is no legal bar in giving
the Gift Deed to a minor. Reference has
been made to the provisions of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 and the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case
of K. Balakrishnan vs. K. Kamalam And
Others along with K. Kamalam vs. K.
Balakrishnan And Others reported in
(2004) 1 SCC 581.

(xi) The observation in the order
impugned has been made only with regard
to condonation of delay, however, for the
purposes of cancelling the Grant(s)/Gift
Deed(s) the opposite party No.2 has not
recorded any reason, though as per settled
view of the Hon'ble Apex Court the same
is required. According to law settled, even
the
Administrative
authorities should
record
its
reasons
for
coming
to
conclusion and a perusal of the order
impugned
would
show
that
the
observations/facts have been indicated in
the order just to give the benefit of Section
5 of Limitation Act, 1963. As such also
the order impugned is liable to be
interfered with.

20. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the State and Sri
Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the opposite party No.4 (whistle
blower) opposed the present petition. They
stated that (i) under U.P. Act No.10 of
1953 the land can only be provided to
'landless
agricultural
labourers',
the
expression inserted vide U.P. Act No.10 of
1975 in the principal Act No.10 of 1953
and the petitioner, who was minor at
relevant time, was not covered under this
expression and as such, the Grants(s), in
issue, were void-ab-initio and being so the
impugned order does not suffer from any
violation of law. Thus, the petition
deserves to be dismissed with costs.

21. Considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

22. In regard to submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the order dated 28.12.2022
passed by the opposite party No.2-Chief
Revenue Officer, Sultanpur is non-est
being passed by incompetent authority,
this Court finds it appropriate to refer
some provisions of the U.P. Act No.10 of
1953.

"2.(3)(f) words and expressions
not defined in this Act shall have the
meaning assigned to them-

(i) in areas referred to in subclause (1) of clause (c), in the U.P.
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950;

(ii) in areas referred to in subclause (ii) of the said clause in the U.P.
Tenancy Act; 1939;

(iii) in other areas, in the law
relating to land tenure applicable to the
land.

3.
Establishment
and
incorporation of the Bhoodan Yagya
Committee.-There shall be established a
Bhoodan Yagna Committee for Uttar
Pradesh (hereinafter called the Committee)
having perpetual succession which shall be
a body corporate vested with the capacity
of suing and being sued in its corporate
names acquiring, holding, administering
and transferring property, both movable
and immovable and of entering into
contracts.

4. Constitution committee.-(1)
The Committee shall consist of the
following members; namely-

(a) the Chairman to be nominated
by the [State Government;]4

(b) four or
more
but
not
exceeding nine members to be nominated
by the [State Government.]4

(2) [xxxxxx]5

(3) The nomination [xxxxxx]6 of
the Chairman and of the members shall
be notified in the Gazette in the manner
prescribed.

(4) The Chairman and members
of the committee shall hold office for four
years from the date of the notification
under sub-section (3) and shall be
eligible
for
re-appointment
or
renomination.

5.
Dissolution
of
the
committee.-(1) If at any time the State
Government is satisfied that-

(a) the Committee has failed
without reasonable cause or excuse to
discharge duties or to perform functions
imposed or assigned by or under this Act;

(b)
circumstances
have
so
arisen that the Committee is rendered
unable or may be rendered unable to
discharge duties or to perform functions
imposed or assigned by or under this Act;
or

(c) it is otherwise expedient or
necessary to dissolve the committee,

It may by notification in the
official Gazette

(i) dissolve the committee for
the period to be specified;

(ii) direct the reconstitution of
the committee in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 of this act; and

(iii) declare that the duties,
powers and functions of the committee
under this Act shall for the period for
which
it
has
been
dissolved
be
discharged, exercised and performed by
such person or authority and subject to
such restrictions as may be specified
therein.

(2) The State Government may
make such incidental and consequential
10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1105
provisions as may appear to be necessary
for this purpose.

14. Grant of land to landless
persons.-[(1)]10 The committee or such
other authority or person as the Committee
with the approval of the State Government,
specify either generally or in respect of any
area, may, in the manner prescribed, grant
lands which have vested in it to the
[landless agricultural labourers]11, and
the grantee of the land shall-

(i) where the land is situate in
any state which has vested in the State
Government under and in accordance with
section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, acquire in
such land he rights and the liabilities of a
[Bhumidar
with
non-transferable
rights,]12 and

(ii) where it is situate in any other
area, acquire therein such rights and
liabilities and subject to such conditions,
restrictions and limitations as may be
prescribed and they shall have effect, any
law to the contrary notwithstanding.

[(2) Where the committee or
other authority or person as aforesaid fails
to grant any land in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of three years
from the date of vesting of such land in the
committee
or
from
the
date
of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhoodah Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975,
whichever is later, the Collector may
himself grant such land to the landless
agricultural labourers in the manner
prescribed, and thereupon the grantee shall
acquire the rights and liabilities mentioned
in sub-section (1) as if the grant were made
by the committee itself.

(3) [xxxxxx]13

(4) In making grant of land under
this section, the committee or, other
authority or person as aforesaid or the
Collector, as the case may be, shall observe
the following principles:-

(a) At least fifty per cent of the
land available for grant shall be granted to
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging to
the
Kol,
Pathari,
Khairwar,
Baiga,
Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and
such other tribes as the State Government
on the recommendation of the Committee
may notify in this behalf;

(b) The land situate in one village
shall, as far as possible, be granted to
persons residing in that very village.

Explanation-For the purposes of
this section; the expression "land-less
agricultural labourer" means a person
whose main source of liveli-hood is
agricultural labour or cultivation and who
at the relevant time either holds no land or
holds; land not exceeding 0.40468564
hectares (one acre) in Uttar Pradesh as a
bhumidhar,
[xxxxxx]14 asami
or
Government lessee.]15

15-A. [Cancellation of certain
grant.-(1) The Collector may of his own
motion and shall on the report of the
committee or on the application of any
person aggrieved by the grant of any land
made under section 14, whether before or
after the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act,
1975, inquire into such grant, and if he is
satisfied that the grant was irregular or
was
obtained
by
the
grantee
by
misrepresentation or fraud, he may-
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) cancel the grant, and on such
cancellation,
notwithstanding
anything
contained in section 14 or in any other law
for the time being in force, the rights, title
and interest of the grantee or any person
claiming through him in such land shall
cease, and the land shall revert to the
committee; and

(ii) direct delivery of possession
of such land to the committee after
ejectment of every person holding or
retaining possession thereof, and may for
that purpose use or cause to be used such
force as may be necessary.

(2) Notice of every proceeding
under sub-section (1) shall be given to the
committee, and any representation made by
the committee in relation thereto shall be
taken into consideration by the Collector.

(3) No order shall be passed
under sub-section (1) except after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the grantee
or any person known to the Collector to be
claiming under him.

(4) The order of the Collector
passed under sub-section (1) shall be final
and conclusive.]16"

23. In the light of relevant provisions
i.e. Section 2(3)(f)(i) and Section 2(3)(f)(ii)
as also the fact that the expression
'Collector' has not been defined in the U.P.
Act No.10 of 1953, this Court is of the
view that Sub-section 4 of Section 3 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short "Act
of 1950") and Section 14 read with Section
14-A and 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 (in short "Act of 1901") are relevant
and after considering these provisions the
Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Brahm Singh vs. Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Allahabad & Others; reported in 2008
SCC OnLine All 490; observed that the
Additional Collector can discharge the
duties of Collector and thereafter this Court
in the judgment passed in the case of Seetla
vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2019
SCC OnLine All 4784 also observed that
the Additional Collector can discharge the
function of Collector. The relevant portion
of judgment of Full Bench of this Court is
as under:-

"It is the above provision under
which the Additional Collector is appointed
by the State Government. Sub-sections (3)
and (4) of Section 14A in the present form
were enacted by U.P. Act No. 21 of 1962.
Under Sub-section (3) of Section 14A, the
Additional Collector exercises all such
powers and discharges such duties of
Collector in such cases or class of cases as
the Collector concerned directs. Subsection (4) of Section 14A further provides
that
the
Additional
Collector
while
exercising power and discharging duties
under Sub-section (3) under this Act, i.e
1901 Act and under any other law for the
time being applicable to the Collector, acts
as a Collector of the district. In other
words, the Additional Collector exercises
powers and discharges duties under Subsection (3) of Section 14A as Collector of
the district. Therefore, by legal fiction the
order passed and the jurisdiction exercised
by the Additional Collector by virtue of
Sub-section (3) of Section 14A would be
deemed to be that of a Collector of the
district because of Sub-section (4) of
Section 14A of 1901 Act. Thus, the
Additional
Collector
when
acts
and
discharges
duties
and
functions
or
exercises such powers of a Collector either
under 1901 Act or under any other Act for
the time being in force, that would be
deemed to have been exercised by him as
10 All. Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1107
Collector of the district under that Act.
Thus, the Additional Collector has all the
powers of a Collector under Sub-section
(4) of Section 14A when he exercises power
under Sub-section (3) of Section 14A."

24. At this stage, it would be
appropriate to consider the submissions of
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner, which are to the
effect that the judgment of Full Bench of
this Court is not liable to be taken note of
in view of the fact that the judgment of
Single Judge affirmed by Full Bench was
set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court prior
to the judgment passed by the Full Bench
of this Court.

25. This Court finds that there is no
force in the submissions of learned counsel
for the petitioner for the reason that the
Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the
aims and objects of the U.P. Act No.10 of
1953, interfered in the order of this Court
dated 09.09.1988 and affirmed the order of
Additional Collector dated 01.01.1976,
whereby the Grant under the Act provided
to respondent was cancelled. The relevant
portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in the case of U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Samiti, U.P. vs. Braj Kishore and
Others; reported in (1988) 4 SCC 274
reads as under:-

"3. Before the High Court two
questions were raised. First was about the
jurisdiction of the Additional Collector as
under the Act the duties were cast on the
Collector to enquire into these matters and
therefore on that ground it was contended
before the High Court that Additional
Collector has no jurisdiction. The other
ground which was raised before the High
Court was that the view taken by the
Additional Collector is not in accordance
with law. So far as the first ground is
concerned, even the High Court held
against the respondents and before us
learned Counsel for parties conceded that
to that part of the High Court judgment
there is no challenge and this now is not in
dispute that the Additional Collector has
jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and
therefore on that ground it is not necessary
for us to dilate any more.

4. We
are
therefore
mainly
concerned with as to whether the settlement
made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in
favour
of
the
respondents
was
in
accordance with law or which was not in
accordance
with
law
and
therefore
Additional Collector was right in setting
aside those allotments.

5. As
regards
the
second
question, the facts in this case are not in
dispute. The respondents are businessmen
residing in Kanpur. It is not disputed that
they have their trade in Kanpur and have
properties also and are income tax-payers.
It is also not in dispute that they are not
agriculturists and they had at the time of
allotment nothing to do with agriculture.
Apart from it their source of livelihood was
not agriculture at all but trade and
business. It is also not in dispute that they
did not fall into any of the categories of
persons depending on agriculture who did
not have land in their name. On this
ground, it was contended before the
Additional Collector that in fact the
allotment was obtained by the respondents
by misrepresenting that they are landless
persons and on the basis of this the
allotments were made which could not be
justified.

6.