# Shakeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1752
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-02
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 3750 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakeel-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52018
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law -Revenue law- name of the
petitioner along with his relatives struck of
land-land in question restored as Gram
Sabha land-allotted in favour of private
respondents-order under Section 176(A) of
UPZA&LR Act, 1950 under challenge-
ascertainment of nature of land under
Section 132 of the Act- core issue- Sections
76(1)(dd), 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006- Asami in possession of land entitled
to be recorded as Bhumidhar- name of
petitioner could not have been recorded
over the land on the basis of inheritance
after expiry of lease period-benefit of
Section 76(1)(dd) cannot be providedProviso to sub rule (1) of the Rule 176 (A)
of the UPZA& LR Rules, 1952- no lease shall
be made in favour of Asami for a period
exceeding 5 years- no benefit can accrue to
petitioner-on strength of his entry in CH
Form no. 45-vailidity of a patta cannot be
ascertained by consolidation authoritiesPetition dismissed. (Paragraphs 12 and 14
to 18)

HELD:
The legislative intent of Section 76(1) (dd) of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is that even Aasami in
possession of the land is entitled to be recorded
as Bhumidhar, if the land is not covered under
Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Admittedly, the Plot No. 315 area 1.061 hectare
in 1359 Fasli is recorded as 'Banjar Category-5'.
Banjar Land may belong to the Gaon Sabha but
is not covered under 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act or 77 of the Code. In the opinion of the Court,
the name of the petitioner could not have been
recorded over the land on the basis of inheritance
after expiry of lease period. The petitioner is thus
not entitled to the benefit of Section 76(1) (dd)
more so on the ground that no such plea had
been taken before the Revenue Authorities and
has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner for the first time without there being
and pleading or foundation in that regard in the
writ petition. (Para 12)
The proviso to sub-Rule (1) of the Rule 176(A) of
the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rule, 1952 provides that no lease shall be made
to an Aasami for a period exceeding 5 years. The
justification for grant of Aasami leases for a
period of 5 years was considered in the case of
Hari Ram Vs Collector reported in 2004(97) RD
360, wherein it was laid down that the object of
provisions contained in Chapter VII pertaining to
the grant of lease by the Land Management
Committee is a provision enacted to give effect
to the Constitutional mandate as contained in
Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India. The
object contained in Article 39(b) is distribution of
material resources of the community to best subserve the common hood. The restriction of 5
years of an Aasami lease is only for the purpose
that lease be again granted after 5 years to best
sub-serve the common hood. The sub-Rule (2) of
the Rule 176-A empowers the Assistant Collector
to determine the lease even before the expiry of
the lease. (Para 14)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much
emphasis
on
the
fact
that
during
the
consolidation operations that had intervened
during the subsistence of the lease in favour of
the father of the petitioner, the name of the
father came to be recorded as Bhumidhar with
transferable rights and the same was also
reflected in CH Form-45. Once the Bhumidhari
Rights had been acquired the proceedings under
Section 176-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
was completely unwarranted. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy the
query of the Court as to how the Bhumidhari
rights stood accrued to the father of the
petitioner who had been granted Aasami Patta.
In the opinion of the Court no benefit can accrue
to the petitioner on the fact that the name of the
father of the petitioner was recorded as
Bhumidhar in CH Form-45 in view of the Full
Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1977
Alld. 360 wherein it has been held that
Consolidation Authorities are not vested with any
power, authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the validity of the patta

## Text

1752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sought to doubt the correctness of the charge
allegation that the petitioner had tried to
influence the ACJM on 18.12.2015. However,
the petitioner could not dislodge the basic fact
existence of ordersheet entry 18.12.2015
recorded by the learned ACJM. What may
have transpired on 16.01.2016 was not the
subject matter of the charge levelled and it was
not the subject matter to be inquired into in the
course of the Domestic Inquiry proceedings.
The misconduct with which the petitioner was
charged was found proven. The misconduct
being, his effort to influence another judicial
officer in the course of a judicial proceeding,
in which he was personally interested, enough
material was brought on record. The petitioner
was confronted with all adverse material that
were being relied against him and the Inquiry
Judge 'B' reached the conclusion of his guilt
as to that misconduct, based on material and
evidence gathered in the course of that inquiry.

109. It must be recorded that in the
course of his cross examination, the petitioner
admitted having called the ACJM on
telephone, through 'I' the lawyer representing
the petitioner's wife in the case giving rise to
the misconduct. In this regard, the Inquiry
Judge 'B' has observed as under:-

"At this juncture, it would be
relevant to point out that in his crossexamination, Sri Sirohi has stated that he
never met Sri xxxx (the ACJM) and he has no
grudges against him. In order to remove
certain doubts, as certain advocates were not
happy with his way of working, he had a
telephonic conversation with Sri xxxx through
Sri 'I', Advocate. Thus, there was a telephonic
conversation between Charged Officer and
EW-1. When confronted with the question that
Sri 'I', Advocate, who has been produced by
him as DW-6, is an interested witness, the
Charged Officer has stated that he has no
relation with Sri 'I', Advocate as he is
Advocate for the complainant, Dr. Meghna
Sirohi."

110. Once the petitioner admitted having
called the learned ACJM (who was seized with
the case proceeding involving his close family
members), that too, using the mobile phone of
his wife's lawyer - ostensibly to check the
ACJM regarding his working, every other
detail referred to by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner - to point certain deficiencies in
the conduct of that Inquiry, pales into
insignificance. For the guilt of the petitioner -a
a judicial officer to be established, the above
quoted passage was enough. Clearly, the
petitioner had not called the ACJM in his
capacity as a senior officer but as the husband
of the complainant that too using the phone of
her lawyer. The inviolable code of conduct and
self-restraint to be always maintained by any
human being who may ever come to occupy a
judicial office, is seen clearly and irreparably
violated, by the petitioner. In committing that
transgression, the petitioner earned absolute
demerit. It rendered him unfit to hold judicial
office, any further. As with the mythological
'Shishupal', so with the petitioner, he made that
'one' transgression that could not be spared.

111. In view of the above, writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1752
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 3750 of 2024

Shakeel Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
5 All. Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1753
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chandra Pal Singh, Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

Civil Law -Revenue law- name of the
petitioner along with his relatives struck of
land-land in question restored as Gram
Sabha land-allotted in favour of private
respondents-order under Section 176(A) of
UPZA&LR Act, 1950 under challenge-
ascertainment of nature of land under
Section 132 of the Act- core issue- Sections
76(1)(dd), 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006- Asami in possession of land entitled
to be recorded as Bhumidhar- name of
petitioner could not have been recorded
over the land on the basis of inheritance
after expiry of lease period-benefit of
Section 76(1)(dd) cannot be providedProviso to sub rule (1) of the Rule 176 (A)
of the UPZA& LR Rules, 1952- no lease shall
be made in favour of Asami for a period
exceeding 5 years- no benefit can accrue to
petitioner-on strength of his entry in CH
Form no. 45-vailidity of a patta cannot be
ascertained by consolidation authoritiesPetition dismissed. (Paragraphs 12 and 14
to 18)

HELD:
The legislative intent of Section 76(1) (dd) of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is that even Aasami in
possession of the land is entitled to be recorded
as Bhumidhar, if the land is not covered under
Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Admittedly, the Plot No. 315 area 1.061 hectare
in 1359 Fasli is recorded as 'Banjar Category-5'.
Banjar Land may belong to the Gaon Sabha but
is not covered under 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act or 77 of the Code. In the opinion of the Court,
the name of the petitioner could not have been
recorded over the land on the basis of inheritance
after expiry of lease period. The petitioner is thus
not entitled to the benefit of Section 76(1) (dd)
more so on the ground that no such plea had
been taken before the Revenue Authorities and
has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner for the first time without there being
and pleading or foundation in that regard in the
writ petition. (Para 12)
The proviso to sub-Rule (1) of the Rule 176(A) of
the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rule, 1952 provides that no lease shall be made
to an Aasami for a period exceeding 5 years. The
justification for grant of Aasami leases for a
period of 5 years was considered in the case of
Hari Ram Vs Collector reported in 2004(97) RD
360, wherein it was laid down that the object of
provisions contained in Chapter VII pertaining to
the grant of lease by the Land Management
Committee is a provision enacted to give effect
to the Constitutional mandate as contained in
Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India. The
object contained in Article 39(b) is distribution of
material resources of the community to best subserve the common hood. The restriction of 5
years of an Aasami lease is only for the purpose
that lease be again granted after 5 years to best
sub-serve the common hood. The sub-Rule (2) of
the Rule 176-A empowers the Assistant Collector
to determine the lease even before the expiry of
the lease. (Para 14)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much
emphasis
on
the
fact
that
during
the
consolidation operations that had intervened
during the subsistence of the lease in favour of
the father of the petitioner, the name of the
father came to be recorded as Bhumidhar with
transferable rights and the same was also
reflected in CH Form-45. Once the Bhumidhari
Rights had been acquired the proceedings under
Section 176-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
was completely unwarranted. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy the
query of the Court as to how the Bhumidhari
rights stood accrued to the father of the
petitioner who had been granted Aasami Patta.
In the opinion of the Court no benefit can accrue
to the petitioner on the fact that the name of the
father of the petitioner was recorded as
Bhumidhar in CH Form-45 in view of the Full
Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1977
Alld. 360 wherein it has been held that
Consolidation Authorities are not vested with any
power, authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the validity of the patta except in certain
special circumstances which admittedly do not
exist in the present case nor has been pleaded or
any foundation laid in the writ petition. (Para 18)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)
1754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. Gangadeen Vs St. of U.P. & ors.reported in
2018(138) RD 68

2. Writ-B No. 24167 of 2017 (Karamjeet Singh &
ors. Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & ors.)
(Neutral Citation No. 2024 AHC 48683)

3. Hari Ram Vs Collector reported in 2004(97) RD
360

4. Parabdin Vs Board of Revenue, U.P at Lucknow
& ors. (Writ-B No.38209 of 2016)

5. Ali Jaan & ors. Vs Additional Collector (Judicial)
& ors. (Writ-B No.5596 of 2018) decided on
19.11.2018

6. Vijay Kumari Vs Consolidation Officer,
Sawayajpur, Hardoi & ors. (Consolidation No.
6946 of 2019) decided on 13.03.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State Respondents
and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed
questioning
the
orders
dated
16.01.2009 passed by the Respondent No. 2,
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur, Bijnor
under Section 176 (A) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950 whereby and whereunder the
name of the petitioner and his brothers
Khalid Ahmad, Naeem Ahmad and mother
Akhtari wife of Tasleem Ahmad as Aasami
Patta holder (Category-3) over Plot No. 315
area 1.061 hectares lagan 109 contained in
Khata No. 244 (1412 to 1417 Fasli) has been
struck off and land has been restored as
Gram Sabha land category 6 as also the
order dated 31.05.2022 whereby and
whereunder the land contained in the above
mentioned Plot No. 15 has been allotted in
favour of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 and
the allotment has also been approved.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the
Plot No. 576 area 3.13 hectare and Plot No.
624 area 1.52 hectare were leased out in
favour of Tasleem Ahmad the father of the
petitioner under the resolution of the Gram
Sabha dated 25.12.1977 and the allotment
was duly approved by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Dhampur and the father of the
petitioner was put in possession over the
land allotted as is evident from ZA Form No.
58 dated 25.12.1977 filed as Annexure No.
3 to the writ petition. The dispute in the
present writ petition is confined to Plot No.
576 area 3.13 hectares. During the
subsistence of the lease the consolidation
operations intervened in the village and the
plot number allotted changed from 576 to
315. After close of the consolidation
operations the name of the father of the
petitioner namely Tasleem Ahmad was
reflected in CH Form-45 as Bhumidhar of
Plot No. 315. A Kishan Bahi bearing No.
420855 was issued by the Tehsildar Nagina,
Bijnor on the basis of the entry in CH Form45. The father of the petitioner Tasleem
Ahmad, the original allottee expired and
consequent to his death the names of the
petitioner, his brothers and mother were
recorded over the Plot No. 315 under PA-11.
The petitioner is stated to be in possession
over the plot and performing agricultural
operations thereon since then.

4. This Court vide order dated
22.04.2024 after recording the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
State
Respondents and also noting that the core
question to test the validity of the impugned
5 All. Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1755
order would be to ascertain the nature of the
land in dispute, whether it was covered by
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as
stated in the impugned order, at the time of
allotment of lease in question or otherwise,
as the records filed along with the writ
petition did not clarify the said position, had
required the learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
to
obtain
specific
instructions in this regard and appraise the
Court as to the exact nature of the land
allotted to the father of the petitioner way
back in the year 1977.

5. Pursuant to the order aforesaid,
instructions have been received which are
taken on record.

6. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the
basis of the instructions submits that the plot
in question i.e. Plot No. 315 area 1.061
hectare was recorded as 'Banjar' Category-5'
in 1359 F and was Gram Sabha Property. An
Asami Patta (Category-3) was executed in
favour of Sri Tasleem Ahmad late father of
the petitioner Sakeel Ahmad. At the relevant
time the land was recorded as 'Banjar'
Category-5' and since period of lease had not
expired the name of Tasleem Ahmad was
recorded over the land. Tasleem Ahmad
expired on 04.10.2006 and the name of the
petitioner and other heirs of Tasleem Ahmad
came to be recorded over the land on the
basis of PA-11 entry.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Respondent No. 2, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur District
Bijnor passed the impugned order dated
16.01.2009 under Section 176(A) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act behind the back of
the petitioner relying upon an ex-parte
report
of
the
Tehsildar
concerned.
Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate
has proceeded to allot the land to the
Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the impugned order
proceeds on the erroneous assumption that
the land belonged to reserved category
land covered by Section 132 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was Gaon Sabha
property whereas admittedly the land is
'navin-parti' which had been leased out to
the father of the petitioner Tasleem
Ahmad, who was subsequently declared
Bhumidhar. The land as such was
Bhumidhari land and could not be allotted
to the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. It is also
argued that the impugned order is entirely
ex-parte and has been passed on total non
application of mind, barred by Section 49
of the U.P.C.H. Act. It is also argued that
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
Section 76(1) (dd) of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 which has not been considered
by the authorities. Reliance has been
placed upto the decision of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of
Gangadeen Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2018(138) RD 68 and Writ-B
No. 24167 of 2017 (Karamjeet Singh and
2 others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow and 2 others) (Neutral Citation
No. 2024 AHC 48683) to emphasize the
point that as per Clause (dd) of sub Section
(1) of the Section 76, every person who was
an Asami in possession of land not covered
by Section 77 of the Code, immediately
before the commencement of the Code and
has been recorded as such in Class-3 of the
Annual Register (Khatauni) of 1407 Fasli
shall
become
Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights and shall have all the
rights and be subject to all the liabilities
conferred or imposed upon such Bhumidhar
by or under the Code. It is argued that the
land in question is not covered by Section 77
1756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Code. The name of the father of the
petitioner was recorded in the Khatauni till
1412-1417 Fasli and after his death the name
of the petitioner stood recorded under PA11 as heir of Tasleem Ahmad and as such
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
Clause (dd) of Sub Section (1) of Section 76
of the Code.

9. Reliance is also placed upon a
decision of this court in the case of Ram
Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 15.04.2019, Neutral Citation
No. 2019:AHC 63918 to buttress the
proposition that cancellation of the lease
could be done only after serving notice
which admittedly was not done and as such
the impugned order is unsustainable. Based
upon the above submissions it is prayed that
the impugned orders be set aside and the
writ petition allowed.

10. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State Respondents in opposition to the writ
petition at the very outset submits that the
impugned order is revisable and the
petitioner has an effective alternative
remedy and the writ petition is not liable to
be entertained.

11. Sri Shukla further submits that the
Commissioner and Secretary Board of
Revenue, U.P., Anubhag-5, Lucknow issued
an order dated 01.08.2006 to all District
Magistrates, U.P. to identify all Aasami
Category-3 and Category-4 as also illegal
occupants over Government Land and take
measures against such persons whose leases
have expired and are in illegal occupation of
the land. Since the tenure of the lease in
favour of the father of the petitioner had
already expired, the petitioner cannot
continue in possession over the land. The
original allottee i.e. Tasleem Ahmad has
already expired. The land is Gaon Sabha
Land and the petitioner is not entitled to the
benefit of 76(1) (dd) of the Code. The
Aasami leases granted under Section 195 are
not heritable and no right can be said to flow
to the petitioner after the death of his father
the original allottee after the expiry of the
period of 5 years of the Aasami lease as per
Rule 176-A(2). After expiry of the lease, the
land shall stand automatically vested in the
Gaon Sabha. It is also submitted that the plea
of the benefit of Section 76(1) (dd) has been
taken for the very first time before this Court
during the course of arguments and there is
no ground/pleadings made in this regard in
the writ petition. No such ground was ever
raised before the Authority below. It is,
accordingly, prayed that the writ petition
deserved to be dismissed on merits as also
on the ground of alternative remedy.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as also the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State
Respondents. I have also perused the case
laws cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The legislative intent of Section
76(1)(dd) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
is that even Aasami in possession of the land
is entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhar, if
the land is not covered under Section 77 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Admittedly,
the Plot No. 315 area 1.061 hectare in 1359
Fasli is recorded as 'Banjar Category-5'.
Banjar Land may belong to the Gaon Sabha
but is not covered under 132 of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act or 77 of the Code. In the opinion
of the Court, the name of the petitioner could
not have been recorded over the land on the
basis of inheritance after expiry of lease
period. The petitioner is thus not entitled to
the benefit of Section 76(1)(dd) more so on
the ground that no such plea had been taken
before the Revenue Authorities and has been
argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
5 All. Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1757
for the first time without there being and
pleading or foundation in that regard in the
writ petition.

13. Admittedly, Tasleem Ahmad the
original allottee had been granted Aasami
lease of the land in question under Resolution
of the Land Management Committee dated
25.12.1977. The period of such Aasami lease
is only 5 years. The lease in favour of the
Allottee Tasleem Ahmad could not travel
beyond 24.12.1982. There is no material on
record to establish the fact tht the period of
lease was extended nor any such plea has been
taken before the Authorities below or in the
writ petition itself.

14. The proviso to sub Rule (1) of the
Rule 176(A) of the U. P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rule, 1952
provides that no lease shall be made to an
Aasami for a period exceeding 5 years. The
justification for grant of Aasami leases for a
period of 5 years was considered in the case
of Hari Ram Vs. Collector reported in
2004(97) RD 360, wherein it was laid down
that the object of provisions contained in
Chapter VII pertaining to the grant of lease
by the Land Management Committee is a
provision enacted to give effect to the
Constitutional mandate as contained in
Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India.
The object contained in Article 39(b) is
distribution of material resources of the
community to best sub-serve the common
hood. The restriction of 5 years of an
Aasami lease is only for the purpose that
lease be again granted after 5 years to best
sub-serve the common hood. The sub Rule
(2) of the Rule 176-A empowers the
Assistant Collector to determine the lease
even before the expiry of the lease.

15. A Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Parabdin Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P at Lucknow and 4 others
(Writ-B No.38209 of 2016) decided on
02.09.2016 while considering a similar
situation as the present case observed as
under in Para 8 of the judgment.

"8. A perusal of the patta as well
as revenue record shows that the petitioner
was not granted sirdari patta rather he was
granted asami patta from the very
beginning. Under the provisions of Rule
176 A of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952 patta for
asami right could be granted for maximum
period of five years. Admittedly, the patta
was granted to the petitioner on 7.2.1976.
Thus the period of patta has already come
to an end and due efflux of time on the date
of impugned order dated 30.12.2009. The
petitioner left with no substantive right
over the land in dispute and his name was
rightly deleted from the revenue record. In
any case in the absence of any right over
the land in dispute this Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction cannot direct for restoring
the name of the petitioner over the land in
dispute."

16. Likewise, another Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Jaan
and 9 others Vs. Additional Collector
(Judicial) and 3 others (Writ-B No.5596 of
2018) decided on 19.11.2018 observed as
under:-

"It is settled law that an assami
patta can be granted for a maximum
duration of five years. Therefore, the
period of allotment automatically came to
an end in the year 1970. Under the
circumstances, there was absolutely no
justification for the Consolidation Officer
for granting bhumidhari rights to the
petitioners on the basis of an allotment,
which had come to an end, at least 20 years
before the order was passed by him.
1758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Besides, on a pointed query by the
Court, as to the provision of law
whereunder an asami can become a
bhumidhari
with
transferable
rights,
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Section 131 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

In my considered opinion, this
submission is without merit because
Section 131 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act specifies
as to who is a bhumidhari with non
transferable rights.

Admittedly, the lease granted to
the petitioners or their predecessor-ininterest in the year 1965 was of asami
rights as defined in Section 133 of the Act.
There
exists
no
provision
of
law
whereunder an asami can become either a
bhumidhari with transferable or non
transferable rights of the land allotted to
him.

Moreover, the proviso to Rule
176-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules states that no lease
shall be made to an asami for a period
exceeding five years."

17. Yet again another Coordinate
Bench of this Court in case of Vijay Kumari
Vs. Consolidation Officer, Sawayajpur,
Hardoi and 2 others (Consolidation No.
6946 of 2019) decided on 13.03.2019 along
with 34 others, writ petitions observed as
under:-

"The
only
Patta
which
is
permissible to be granted by the Land
Management
Committee
in
a
land
referable to Section 132 is the Asami Patta
in terms of the provision contained in
Section 133(c). However, such Asami Patta
which is permissible to be granted over a
land referable to Section 132 cannot be
granted in perpetuty; rather term of Asami
Patta is restricted to a period of 5 years in
terms of the provision contained in Rule
176-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules.
Admittedly, the nature of pattas on which
the petitioners place reliance in this case
are not Asami Patta. Even if, it is presumed
that pattas said to have been granted in
favour of the petitioners on 31.10.1992
were Asami Pattas, their term itself has
come to an end in terms of the provisions
contained in Rule 176-A of the U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Rules."

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has laid much emphasis on the fact that
during the consolidation operations that had
intervened during the subsistence of the
lease in favour of the father of the petitioner,
the name of the father came to be recorded
as Bhumidhar with transferable rights and
the same was also reflected in CH Form-45.
Once the Bhumidhari Rights had been
acquired the proceedings under Section 176A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was
completely
unwarranted.
The
learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy
the query of the Court as to how the
Bhumidhari rights stood accrued to the father
of the petitioner who had been granted Aasami
Patta. In the opinion of the Court no benefit
can accrue to the petitioner on the fact that the
name of the father of the petitioner was
recorded as Bhumidhar in CH Form-45 in
view of the Full Bench decision of this Court
reported in AIR 1977 Alld. 360 wherein it has
been held that Consolidation Authorities are
not vested with any power, authority or
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of
the
patta
except
in
certain
special
circumstances which admittedly do not exist
in the present case nor has been pleaded or any
foundation laid in the writ petition.

19. In the instructions brought on
record by the learned counsel representing
5 All. Jai Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1759
the State Respondents it has been clearly
mentioned that after passing of the
impugned order dated 16.01.2009 and
restoration of the land as Gram Samaj and
the same has been allotted to the Respondent
Nos. 4, 5 & 6 vide order dated 31.05.2022
and the allottees i.e. the Respondent Nos. 4,
5 & 6 have already been put in possession
thereof and their names stand recorded over
the Plot No. 315 as Bhumidhars with non
transferable rights. Besides the petitioner is
not landless and Plot No. 316 area 0.877
hectare stand recorded in the name of his
mother and other co-sharers.

20. In view of the above, the Court is
not inclined to grant any indulgence to the
petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the dismissal of the writ petition
shall not come in the way of the petitioner to
establish his rights over the plot in dispute
by taking recourse to filing suit for
declaration of his rights over the land in
appropriate proceedings.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1759
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 7417 of 2024

Jai Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra, Vijai
Shanker Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Vineet Pandey

Civil Law -revenue law- proceedings under
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
challenged- impugned orders passed on
the basis of incorrect report of Revenue
Inspector- Alternative remedy- revision
under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006-High Court will not entertain a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India-effective alternative
remedy available to the aggrieved personstatue itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance- Petition dismissed.

HELD:
Having considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties, the Court is of
the opinion that several factual aspects as
submitted by counsels for the parties, need to be
ironed out before the writ petition can be decided
on merits. Moreover, a statutory remedy to assail
the order of the Commissioner passed under
Section 24 (4) has been provided in the statute
book itself which in the opinion of the Court may
not be bypassed.

The Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent
Education Society case (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, itself in Para
30 of the decision has clarified that the High
Court will not entertain a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative
remedy is available to the aggrieved person or
the statute under which the action is complained
of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition in the wake of
availability of a statutory alternate remedy of
filing a revision under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 against the impugned order
dated
19.12.2023
passed
by
the
Addl.
Commissioner (Administration) 2nd, Meerut
Division, Meerut. (Para 12)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited: