# Smt. Sushma Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 367
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-22
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 1000081 of 1994
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sushma-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54656
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Revenue Law - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reform Act, 1950 - Section 198(4)
- Cancellation of patta - Land is a pond -
Lessee is not the landless agricultural
labour and her husband is in government
job of Sub Divisional Officer in Tube Well
Department - Effect - Held, allotment of
lease is to be granted in favour of persons,
who comes under the category defined
under the Act. The petitioner does not
come under the ambit nor is a landless
agriculturist - No illegality has been
committed
in
passing
the
impugned
orders. (Para 13)
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

11 All. Smt. Sushma Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
alone was granted for the filing of
the objections and suggestions
when publication was made under
Section 4. It is not as if the matter
is so urgent that such a short notice
is
to
be given. Though
the
petitioners have not raised any
complaint as such against the short
period, and we need not actually
pronounce on this; but, we certainly
think that in future, Government
must apply its mind to it and give
reasonable
time
to
persons
concerned to raise objections for
proposal and also apply its mind to
the matter."

18. In the cited case of Nagar
Palika Parishad, one of the challenges
made to the notification was that the
extension of the area of Nagar Palika
Parishad was hurriedly taken without
issuing
and
publishing
the
primary
notification as provided under Section 4(1)
of the Act, 1916. The Court found the
challenge on this aspect to be baseless
inasmuch as a draft notification under
Section 4 of the Act, 1916 was published in
the official Gazette and objections were
invited.
Certain
objections/suggestions
were
received
which
included
a
representation of the petitioner. All the
representations were considered and it was
found by the Court that the other
representations that were duly decided in
detail with reasons, were on the same line
as that of the petitioner's representation
and, therefore, the contention that the
objections of the petitioner were not
decided with reasons, was found to have no
force.

19. However, in the instant case,
the facts are different. The objections of the
petitioners were never considered. Under
the circumstances, the notification and the
order impugned in the writ petition cannot
be sustained so far as they relate to Village
Barsana Dehat.

20.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, allowed and the impugned
notification dated 13.10.2022, insofar as it
relates to Village-Barsana Dehat, Vikas
Khand-Nand
Gaon,
Tehsil-Goverdhan,
District Mathura, is quashed and the order
dated 20.9.2022 passed by the respondent
no.5, insofar as it relates to Village-Barsana
Dehat is quashed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 367
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ -C No. 1000081 of 1994

Smt. Sushma Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Revenue Law - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reform Act, 1950 - Section 198(4)
- Cancellation of patta - Land is a pond -
Lessee is not the landless agricultural
labour and her husband is in government
job of Sub Divisional Officer in Tube Well
Department - Effect - Held, allotment of
lease is to be granted in favour of persons,
who comes under the category defined
under the Act. The petitioner does not
come under the ambit nor is a landless
agriculturist - No illegality has been
committed
in
passing
the
impugned
orders. (Para 13)
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional CSC for respondent -
State.

2. The present dispute pertains to
plot Nos.22/23 and 276M/1.25 situated in
village Mohammadpur Dina, Pargana and
Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri. The
patta in respect of disputed land was
granted to the petitioner in pursuance of a
resolution made by land management
committee on 22.04.1987, which was
later on approved by the Addl. Sub
Divisional Officer on 12.07.1987. On the
basis of tehsil report, the proceedings
under Section 198(4) UPZA and LR Act
for cancellation of patta granted in favour
of the petitioner in respect of the disputed
land were started on the ground that her
husband was having much land and he
was on the post of Assistant Engineer.
Further the petitioner was not found in
the category of land less agricultural
labour.

3. On the basis of said report of
tehsil, a case was registered and a notice
was served on the petitioner in which the
petitioner filed her objection on the ground
that she was the permanent resident of the
said gaon sabha and she was a land less
agricultural labour. In support of her case,
the petitioner produced herself and two
witnesses - Misri Lal and Pyara Lal. It is
submitted that on behalf of the State, only
one witness i.e. Ram Gopal, Lekhpal was
produced. The petitioner also filed the
extract of Khatauni as well as Khasra
showing the name of the petitioner over the
said disputed land.
4. By perusal of khasra and
khatauni filed by the petitioner, it is clear
that the disputed land i.e. plot Nos.276 &
22 are recorded as talab and the petitioner
had taken the training of fisheries. It is
stated that the patta in favour of the
petitioner was for fisheries purpose and
therefore the cancellation of patta by the
Collector, Kheri under Section 198 (4)
UPZA and LR Act is without jurisdiction.

5. Vide order dated 13.08.1990, the
Collector, Kheri has cancelled the patta
granted in favour of the petitioner only on
the ground that the petitioner is not the land
less agricultural labour and husband of the
petitioner is doing government service and
as such, she is not competent to get patta.
Against the order of the Collector, the
petitioner filed a revision before the Addl.
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow, who dismissed the
revision on 27.10.1993. Against the said
order dated 27.10.1993, the petitioner filed
a
review
petition
before
the Addl.
Commissioner
(Judicial)
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow, who dismissed the
review petition on 14.12.1993 on the
ground that no new argument could be
brought on her behalf as made earlier at the
time of passing the order dated 27.10.1993.

6. Being aggrieved by orders dated
13.08.1990 passed by the Collector, orders
dated 27.10.1993 and 14.12.1993 passed by
the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow,
the
present
writ
petition has been filed before this Court.

7. Submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the courts below
have committed error in cancelling the
patta of the petitioner on imagination,
conjecture and surmises. In fact, the record
has
wrongly
interpreted
and
wrong
11 All. Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
369
conclusion was made that the petitioner
was not a competent person to get the patta
granted in her favour.

8. He next submitted that the
courts
below
have
acted
without
jurisidiction in cancelling the patta of the
petitioner under Section 198 (4) UPZA and
LR Act, while the said patta was granted in
favour of the petitioner for fisheries rights.

9. On the other hand, learned
Additional CSC for respondent State on the
basis of counter affidavit stated that on the
basis of resolution passed by the land
management committee, gata No.22/0.23
acre and 276 min./1.25 acre total 2 kita/1.48
land was allotted in faovur of the petitioner
and both these gatas pertain to the pond,
therefore, a report for cancelling the patta was
sent to the Court of District Magistrate, Kheri
under Section 198(4) UPZA and LR Act. The
District Magistrate, after hearing all the
parties, cancelled the allotment of patta vide
order dated 13.08.1990.

10. Against the order dated
13.08.1990, the petitioner preferred a revision
before the Additional Commissioner under
Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act, which was
dismissed vide judgment and order dated
27.10.1993. Against the said order, the
petitioner filed a review application, which
was also rejected vide order dated 14.12.1993
being devoid of merits.

11. He lastly submitted that there is
no illegality and infirmity in the impugned
orders and the same are just and valid. The
writ petition being misconceived, is liable to
be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.

12.

I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

13. On perusal of record, it is
transpired that the petitioner is not an
agriculturist labour nor has been allotted
land in the shape of pond for fisheries
rights. In fact, the land is a pond and
allotment of lease is to be granted in favour
of persons, who comes under the category
defined under the Act. The petitioner does
not come under the ambit nor is a landless
agriculturist. In fact, 3.42 hectare land has
been allotted in the name of petitioner's
husband Sri Awadhesh Kumar, who is
posted as Sub Divisional Officer in Tube
Well Department, therefore, lease cannot be
granted in his favour, therefore, no
illegality has been committed in passing the
impugned orders.

14. In view of above, the writ
petition
lacks
merit
and
is
hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 369
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8635 of 2023
With other connected cases

Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Jayant Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: