# Sonkali & another v. Gaon Sabha, Village Barisal, Pargana Derapur, Kanpur & another

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1259
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 208 of 1977
- **Bench:** Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonkali-another-v-gaon-sabha-village-barisal-pargana-derapur-kanpur-another-41965
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1958-Section 198 (3)-
grant of lease exceeding of outer limit
prescribed-illegal-as per interpretation
of general clauses Act-singular includes
plural also-lease may be more than onebut outer limit should not exceed 1.26
Hectare-apart from that plots were
reserved for public utility land-lease of
such plot itself illegal.

Held: Para 7

On a plain and simple reading of the
aforesaid provisions would show that a
limit has been prescribed with regard to
area of the land to be allotted. The
keywords are "the land that may be
allotted" with respect thereof, prescribed
outer limit of area is 1.26 hectares
(3.125 acres).

## Text

3 All] Sonkali & another V. Gaon Sabha, Village Barisal, Pargana Derapur, Kanpur & another
1259
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA,J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 208 of 1977

Sonkali W/o Sri Rajjan Lal and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Gaon Sabha, Village Barisal, Pargana
Derapur, Kanpur through its Pradhan
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saksena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.D. Chuhan
S.C.

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1958-Section 198 (3)-
grant of lease exceeding of outer limit
prescribed-illegal-as per interpretation
of general clauses Act-singular includes
plural also-lease may be more than onebut outer limit should not exceed 1.26
Hectare-apart from that plots were
reserved for public utility land-lease of
such plot itself illegal.

Held: Para 7

On a plain and simple reading of the
aforesaid provisions would show that a
limit has been prescribed with regard to
area of the land to be allotted. The
keywords are "the land that may be
allotted" with respect thereof, prescribed
outer limit of area is 1.26 hectares
(3.125 acres).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J )

1. Raising a short controversy with
regard to interpretation of Section 198(3)
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to
as ''the Act'), the present writ petition is at
the instance of allottees, who claimed
allotment of four plot nos. 35, 46, 211 and
560 in their favour by the Gaon Sabha.
Total area of these plots is 8 Bigha and 10
Biswa. Admittedly, these plots belong to
Gaon Sabha.

2. Two petitioners claim that they are
lessees of the aforesaid plots in view of the
lease-deed dated 3rd July, 1970 executed
by respondent no. 1, namely, Gaon Sabha
in their favour. Their names were not
recorded
in
basic
year
when
the
consolidation operation commenced in the
village. An objection under Section 9(a)(2)
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
claiming sirdari right over the aforesaid
plots in pursuance of the lease-deed
referred to above was filed. The claim was
contested by the Gaon Sabha on the
ground that these plots are public utility
land and therefore, could not be subject
matter of allotment. It was pleaded by the
Gaon Sabha that plot no. 35 is being used
as playground of children of the adjoining
school. Plot no. 46 is a part of abadi and
manure pits. Consolidation Officer allowed
the claim in part. The matter was carried in
appeals both at the instance of the
petitioners as well as Gaon Sabha.
Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide the
order dated 9th December, 1974 allowed
the appeal filed by the petitioners and
dismissed the appeal of Gaon Sabha. The
matter was carried in revision being
Revision No. 570 by Gaon Sabha before
Deputy Director of Consolidation who
vide impugned order dated 31st July, 1976
allowed the revision and set aside the patta
on the limited ground that patta being in
excess of permissible limit as provided
under Section 198(3) of the Act, is invalid.
Other aspects of the case was not
examined and left open.
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

3. Shri P.N. Saksena, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed
that the patta in question is not excess of
the area, as mentioned in Section 198(3) of
the Act. His stand is that the patta is valid
as it is in respect of two petitioners. The
area of the land under the lease-deed if is
divided between these two petitioners, the
land in the share of each person would be
within prescribed limit.

4. Shri D.D. Chauhan, learned
counsel for Gaon Sabha, on the other hand,
supports the impugned order.

5.

Considered
the
respective
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. The total area of four plots which
have been leased out to the petitioners, as
mentioned in the order of Deputy Director
of Consolidation and not disputed in the
writ petition is 5 Biswa; 3 Bigha and 6
Biswa; 2 Bigha and 18 Biswa; and 2
Bigha and 1 Biswa, which comes out of 8
Bigha and 10 Biswa. Section 198 of the
Act provides order of preference in
admitting persons to land under Sections
198. The sub-section (3) of Section 198
reads as follows:

"(3) [The land that may be allotted
under sub-section (1) shall not exceed:

(i)in the case of a person falling
under Clause (c) such areas together with
the land held by him as bhumidhar or
asami immediately before the allotment
would aggregate to 1.26 hectares (3.125
acres);

(ii)in any other case, an area of 1.26
hectares (3.125 acres).]"

7. On a plain and simple reading of
the aforesaid provisions would show that
a limit has been prescribed with regard to
area of the land to be allotted. The
keywords are "the land that may be
allotted" with respect thereof, prescribed
outer limit of area is 1.26 hectares (3.125
acres).

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners reads the above provisions in
the manner that area of each allottee
(person) should not exceed to 1.26
hectares. He has laid emphasis on the
word ''person' which occurs in Section
198(3)(i) of the Act. The argument is not
convincing and is against the object and
purpose of the aforesaid section. Section
talks about allotment of land by lease.
Herein, the lease is only one lease which
is dated 17th October, 1972. The opening
words of sub-section "land may be
allotted" and "shall not exceed" are the
key words to interpret the said subsection. They undoubtedly, provide that
the land that may be allotted shall not
exceed the prescribed maximum limit.
The lessees may be more than one person.
Under the U.P. General Clause Act,
singular includes plural also. The lease
being singular lease, the argument that it
will be spllited up, is misconceived. The
prohibition as prescribed is qua a lease.
The lease is one and singular, the
petitioners are co-lessees. Therefore, subsection (3) on its plain interpretation does
not support the petitioners' contention. In
addition to above, the case in hand falls
under sub-section (ii) wherein the word
''person' has not been used. This is
additional reason for not accepting the
petitioners' contention. It talks about lease
to be allotted and the maximum leased
area which can be let out under a lease.
3 All] Ram Pal V. State of U.P.and others.(2)
1261

9. There is no merit in the writ
petition the writ petition is dismissed with
cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only).
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH
RATHORE,J.

Criminal Revision No. - 421 of 2001

Ram Pal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.and others.(2) ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Sarojini Bala

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt.Advocate

Criminal Revision-application U/S/ 156
(1) allowed-revision against that by
prospective
accused-held-
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 5

Law is settled on the point that a
revision on behalf of the prospective
accused against an order passed on
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
is not maintainable.It has been so held in
the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs.
State of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC 1003.
Case law discussed:
2010 (69) ACC 1003

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Vikram
Singh Rathore,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party and the learned A.G.A.

2. The revisionist has moved an
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
before the Judicial Magistrate which was
allowed by the court on13.7.2001 and the
concerned police station was directed to
register and investigate the case in
accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved
by the said order, Crl. Revision No. 208
of 2001 was filed in the court of Session
which was allowed by the 3rd Additional
District & Sessions Judge on 15.9.2001
setting aside the order 13.7.2001 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate.

3. The only argument of the learned
counsel for revisionist is that a revision on
behalf of the prospective accused was not
maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for opposite
party has submitted that proceedings of
complaint with regard to the same
incident are pending and in case the
revision is allowed then a case shall be
registered and they might have to go to
jail. Learned counsel for opposite party
was inquired about the legal position then
he was unable to bring to the notice of the
court any law which mandates the
maintainability of the revision on behalf
of the prospective accused against the
order
passed
against
them
on
an
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

5. Law is settled on the point that a
revision on behalf of the prospective
accused against an order passed on
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
is not maintainable.It has been so held in
the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. State
of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC 1003.

6. In view of the settled legal
position, this revision is hereby allowed
and the order dated 15.9.2001 passed in