# Sumer Singh v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 453
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-09
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 4903 of 1993
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sumer-singh-v-board-of-revenue-ors-53136
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Act - U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules - Schedule 3,
prepared under Rule 338 of the U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Rules, provides limitation for
cancellation of lease on the basis of suo
motu proceedings within a period of three
years from the date when the Collector
knew about the allotment of land -
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, Section 337 - As per
Section
337,
for
the
purposes
of
computing the area fixed under any
provision of the Act, two acres shall be
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counted as one acre in the Bundelkhand
areas - U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, Explanation
A of Section 198 - In view of the
provisions contained under Explanation A
of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act,
holding in the name of the father will not
be treated to be the holding of the son.
Held - Exercising suo motu power after
several years and not within a reasonable
period, even in proceedings where no
limitation is provided for cancellation,
cannot be permitted. (Para 14)

B. In the instant case, petitioner nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, and the father of respondent no. 5/6
were allotted plot measuring about 34.95
acres in the year 1959 (1366 Fasli). Suo
motu
cancellation
proceedings
were
initiated after about 20 years from the
date of execution of the lease in favour of
the petitioners. Collector, vide order dated
16.10.1982,
cancelled
the
petitioners'
lease. Held : Allotted area measuring
34.95 acres would come to about 17.45
acres. Petitioners were five in number and
claimed that they were residing separately
from their father; as such, 17.45 acres
would
be
divided
into
five
parts,
accordingly, each petitioner was allotted
3.49 acres, while the maximum limit for
allotment as provided under Section 198
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was 61⁄4 acres; as
such,
the
allotment
was
within
the
permissible limit. Lease was executed in
the year 1959 in favour of the petitioners;
therefore, the cancellation proceedings
initiated in the year 1979-80 in respect of
the petitioners' lease cannot be said to be
within a reasonable period. Impugned
orders set aside. (Paras 19, 20)

Allowed (E-5)

## Text

4 All. Sumer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
453
Deputy Director of Consolidation to call
for or examine the record of any case
decided or proceedings drawn. Thus for
exercising of revisional jurisdiction, a
party aggrieved may or may not invoke
Section 48 and in an appropriate case, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation can suo
motu exercise his powers of revisional
jurisdiction."

12. According to the observations
made by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Amir Husain and Ors. Vs. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Ors., MANU/UP/0417/1976 : 1977 AWC 1
All : 1978 RD 204, the Consolidation
Authorities can direct the name of Gaon
Sabha or the State Government to be
recorded when it is found that there is no
valid title holder and that under the law
the land had vested in the Government
and then Gaon Sabha even though
Government or Gaon Sabha had not filed
an objection.

13. Upon due consideration of the
facts of the instant case and the relevant
established
provisions
as
also
the
observations made by this Court in the
judgment(s) referred above, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the impugned
order of remand simplicitor for reason that
the C.O., after taking evidence, would
decide the following aspects of the case :-

(i). The D.D.C. in the order
impugned has observed that the land in
issue i.e. Gata No.422 was initially
recorded as 'Usar' in the revenue record.

(ii) In the impugned it has also
been observed that there is overwriting in
the order dated 05.10.1961, passed by the
S.D.O.

(iii) It appears from the record
that the interest of Gaon Sabha/State was
not taken care of while deciding the dispute
between the private opposite parties.

(iv) The D.D.C. in the impugned
order also observed that at the time of
providing Patta, Ram Bux was not even
born.

(v) The D.D.C. in the impugned
order of remand simplicitor dated 6.3.2025
has also observed that some entries in the
Form-58 have been made in different ink.

14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid
reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 453
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 4903 of 1993

Sumer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Aditya Prasad Tewari, Mr. S.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Indrasen Singh Tomar, Addl. C.S.C.,
Mr. Deepak Gaur

A. Patta Cancellation - Limitation for
cancellation of lease - U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act - U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules - Schedule 3,
prepared under Rule 338 of the U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Rules, provides limitation for
cancellation of lease on the basis of suo
motu proceedings within a period of three
years from the date when the Collector
knew about the allotment of land -
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, Section 337 - As per
Section
337,
for
the
purposes
of
computing the area fixed under any
provision of the Act, two acres shall be
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counted as one acre in the Bundelkhand
areas - U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, Explanation
A of Section 198 - In view of the
provisions contained under Explanation A
of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act,
holding in the name of the father will not
be treated to be the holding of the son.
Held - Exercising suo motu power after
several years and not within a reasonable
period, even in proceedings where no
limitation is provided for cancellation,
cannot be permitted. (Para 14)

B. In the instant case, petitioner nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, and the father of respondent no. 5/6
were allotted plot measuring about 34.95
acres in the year 1959 (1366 Fasli). Suo
motu
cancellation
proceedings
were
initiated after about 20 years from the
date of execution of the lease in favour of
the petitioners. Collector, vide order dated
16.10.1982,
cancelled
the
petitioners'
lease. Held : Allotted area measuring
34.95 acres would come to about 17.45
acres. Petitioners were five in number and
claimed that they were residing separately
from their father; as such, 17.45 acres
would
be
divided
into
five
parts,
accordingly, each petitioner was allotted
3.49 acres, while the maximum limit for
allotment as provided under Section 198
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was 61⁄4 acres; as
such,
the
allotment
was
within
the
permissible limit. Lease was executed in
the year 1959 in favour of the petitioners;
therefore, the cancellation proceedings
initiated in the year 1979-80 in respect of
the petitioners' lease cannot be said to be
within a reasonable period. Impugned
orders set aside. (Paras 19, 20)

Allowed (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari and
Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar,
learned Addl. C.S.C. for the staterespondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Land
Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and father of
respondent no. 5/6 were allotted plot in
dispute,
situated
in
village-
Khiriya
Chhatara, Tehasil & District- Lalitpur, area
measuring about 34.95 acres in the year
1959
(1366
fasli).
During
C.L.R.D.
Scheme, leases were executed to the
occupants of the land by the Sub Divisional
Officer. According to the petitioners, after
execution of the lease deed, petitioners
remained in possession. No complaint or
proceeding of any nature were initiated
against the petitioners till the year 1978. A
suo moto proceeding was initiated by the
State of U.P. against the petitioners in the
year 1979 on the ground that the lease
holders already had enough land, as such,
lease executed in favour of the petitioners
should be cancelled. Another ground was
taken that brother of one of the petitioners,
was member of the Land Management
Committee, as such, lease cannot be
granted in favour of the petitioners coupled
with the fact that petitioners did not come
in the category of landless agricultural
labourer, therefore, the lease should be
cancelled. Petitioners appeared before the
trial court and filed their objection, stating
that the petitioners were granted lease
under the CLRD Scheme and after that they
are in peaceful possession of the allotted
land since 1959 and their lease remained
unchallenged for a period of about 20
years, as such, lease of the petitioners
cannot
be
cancelled.
The
trial
court/Collector vide order dated 16.10.1982
cancelled the petitioners' lease. Against the
order dated 16.10.1982, petitioners filed
revision before the Commissioner which
was registered as Revision No.96/1982-83.
The
Commissioner
vide
order
dated
4 All. Sumer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
455
8.8.1983 sent the reference before the
Board of Revenue to allow the revision, set
aside the order of the Collector and remand
the matter before the Collector to decide
the proceeding afresh. The aforementioned
reference was registered as Reference Case
No.113/1983-84 before the Board of
Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. The Board of
Revenue vide order dated 12.11.1992 has
not accepted the reference sent by the
Commissioner and dismissed the revision.
Hence, this writ petition for the following
reliefs:-

"(i) To issue with direction or
order in the nature of certiorari to call for
the record of the case and quash the
judgement and order dated 12.11.1992
passed by the respondent no.1 and that of
the order dated 16.10.1982 passed by
respondent no.2 contained in Annexure
Nos. 3 and 1 respectively.

(ii) To issue with direction or
order in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to dispossess
the petitioners or re-allot this land to any
other person during the pendency of this
writ petition."

3. This Court admitted the writ
petition on 18.2.1993 and stayed the
operation of the impugned orders. In
pursuance of the orders of this Court dated
18.2.1993, counter affidavit has been filed
by the Land Management Committee only.
On
behalf
of
the
petitioners,
a
supplementary affidavit has been filed,
stating that petitioners are still recorded in
the revenue records and continuing in
possession over the plot in question since
1959.

4. Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have
illegally passed the impugned orders,
cancelling the lease executed in favour of
the petitioners in the year 1959 as well as
dismissing the revision of the petitioners.
He further submitted that suo moto
cancellation proceeding has been initiated
after about 20 years from the date of
execution of lease in favour of the
petitioners, as such, same cannot be
entertained. He further submitted that the
petitioners are in possession of the plot in
question since 1959 and this Court while
entertaining the writ petition, has also
granted interim order, staying the operation
of the impugned orders, as such, the
impugned orders should be set aside. He
also
submitted
that
the
procedure
prescribed under The Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the
"U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act") and the Rules
framed thereunder, are to be followed in
proper manner. He also submitted that
even the suo moto proceeding cannot be
initiated at any time in respect to the
lease executed in favour of the person
concerned. He placed reliance upon the
following judgments of this Court in
order to demonstrate that time-barred
proceeding cannot be entertained and
allowed after the period prescribed under
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder:-

"(i)
Prabhu
Dayal
and
Another in Civil Misc. Writ No.3367 of
1978, decided on May 11, 1984;

(ii) Suresh Giri and Others vs.
Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and
Others, 2010 (2) ADJ 514;

(iii) Shanti Devi and Others
vs. Board of Revenue and Others in
Writ B No.14704 of 2013, decided on
10.2.2025;

(iv) Rishi Pal and Others vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2017 (7) ADJ
391;
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) Yadram and Others vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2020 (146) RD
780;

(vi) Jitendra Kumar @ Gopal
vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 (8)
ADJ 503;

(vii) Chhidda and Others vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2019 (8) ADJ
122;

(viii) Dev Sharma and Another
vs. Board of Revenue and Others, 2011
(9) ADJ 716;

(ix) Jiyachhi vs. State of U.P.
and Others, 2014 (124) RD 805."

He
further
placed
the
provisions contained under Section 198
of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as
Section 337 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
in support of their arguments.

5. On the other hand, learnred counsel
for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted
that petitioners were not entitled for the
lease as petitioners have sufficient land in
their name at the relevant point of time, as
such, they cannot be treated as landless
agricultural labourer. He further submitted
that father of the lease holders were
Zamindar, as such, they cannot be allotted
lease of the plot in question. He submitted
that the Board of Revenue has further held
that the petitioners can file a suit for
declaration for their right and title as the
petitioners are also claiming that the land
was allotted to them under CLRD Scheme.
He submitted that no interference is
required in the matter and the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Indrasen
Singh Tomar, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents
submitted that petitioners were not entitled
for the agriculture lease of the plot in
question as they have already had sufficient
land at the relevant point of time. He
further submitted that petitioners were not
landless agriculture labourer, as such, the
agriculture lease cannot be executed in
their favour. He submitted that finding has
been recorded by the Divisional District
Magistrate that petitioners' father was
zamindar and had sufficient land in his
name, as such, the allotment of 34.95 acre
of land in the name of five petitioners was
wholly illegal. He further placed reliance
upon the 8th amendment made in the year
1975 in Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act
in
order
to
demonstrate
that
cancellation proceeding initiated in the year
1979/1980 was within limitation. He
further submitted that in the instant matter,
the suo motto proceeding was initiated
according to the provisions of the U.P. Z.A.
& L.R. Act in view of the Full Bench
Judgement of Board of Revenue reported in
1994 RD 540 Virendra Singh Vs. State of
U.P and Others. He further submitted that
land was not vacant on the date of
allotment, as such, the allotment made in
favour of the petitioners was wholly illegal.
He further submitted that the Schedule 3
prepared under Rule 338 of the U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Rules provides limitation for
cancellation of lease on the basis of suo
motu proceeding within period of three
years from the date when the Collector
knew about the allotment of land. He
further submitted that limit for grant of
agriculture lease was 3.125 acre, as such,
the allotment made for about 34.95 acre =
17.47 acres for Bundelkhand region cannot
be made to the five petitioners who were
residing together along with his father. He
further submitted that one of the family
member of the petitioners was member of
the Land Management Committee, as such,
the allotment cannot be made in favour of
petitioners in respect to the land recorded
as banjar in the revenue records. He
4 All. Sumer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
457
submitted
that
Additional
District
Magistrate
has
rightly
cancelled
the
agriculture lease executed in the favour of
petitioners. He further submitted that
Commissioner has illegally made the
reference for allowing the revision to Board
of Revenue but Board of Revenue has
rightly dismissed the petitioners' revision
and rejected the reference with finding that
petitioners can avail proper remedy for
declaration of their right on the basis of
proceeding taken place under C.L.R.D.
Scheme. He further submitted that there is
no pleading in the writ petition to the effect
that petitioners' family member was not
member
of
the
Land
Management
Committee at the relevant point of time, as
such, the argument advanced by counsel for
the petitioners cannot be accepted. He
submitted that in view of the finding of fact
recorded by Board of Revenue, no
interference is required in the matter and
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that
proceeding
for
cancellation
of
petitioners' lease under Section 198 (4) of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated in
the year 1979-80 and Additional District
Magistrate vide order dated 16.10.1982
cancelled the petitioner's lease. There is
also no dispute about the fact that in
revision, Commissioner Jhansi Division
Jhansi sent the reference before Board of
Revenue to allow the revision, setting aside
the order of Additional District Magistrate.
There is also no dispute about the fact that
Board of Revenue has dismissed the
revision and rejected the reference sent by
the Commissioner.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and
L.R. Act at the relevant point of time, will
be relevant which is as under:-

S. 198. Order of preference in
admitting persons to land under sections
195 and 197- (1) In admitting any person
as sirdar or asami under section 195 or
197, the [Land Management Committee]
shall subject to the rules framed or order
made by the court under section 178
observe
the
following
order
of
preference-

(I.a) a recognised educational
institution for a purpose connected with
instruction in agriculture, horticulture
or animal husbandry;

(a)
a
landless
agricultural
labourer or an asami, residing in the
circle, who does not hold any land
whether as bhumid.har, sirdar, or
adhivasi,

(b) a bhumidhar, sirdar or
adhivasi who is holding land less than 61⁄4
acres in area in the circle,

(c)
a
co-operative
farm
established under this Act holding land
within the jurisdiction of the [Land
Management Committee] to enable it to
possess a suitable area of land, and

(d) any other person:

Provided that the land allotted
to a co-operative farm under clause (c)
shall, if the registration of such farm is
cancelled within two years of the
allotment, revert upon such cancellation
to the Gaon Samaj, and any person
holding or retaining possession of such
land shall be deemed to be a person
occupying it without title liable to
ejectment under clause (b) of section
209:
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided further that in the
cases to which clause (b) applies only so
much land shall be allotted to such
tenure-holder as shall be sufficient to
bring the total area held by him to be six
and a quarter acres.

Provided also that no person
mentioned in clause (a) shall be admitted
to less than 31/8 acres of land, if
available, but in no case to more than 61⁄4
acres.

Explanation.- A person shall be
deemed to be a landless agricultural
labourer if he holds land not exceeding
such maximum as may be prescribed in
that behalf by the State Government
either generally or for any particular
area].

[2) The [Assistant Collector
Incharge of the sub-division] may on his
own motion and shall on the application
of any person aggrieved by an order of
the
Land
Management
Committee
passed under sub-section (1) enquire in
the manner prescribed into an allotment
made under sub-section (1) and if he is
satisfied that the [Land Management
Committee] has acted with substantial
irregularity
or
otherwise
than
in
accordance with the provisions of this
Act, he may pass thereon such order as
he thinks fit]

[(3)
Where
am
Assistant
Collector Incharge of the sub- division
cancels an allotment, the right title and
interest of the provisions of sub- section
(4), cease in the land allotted thereunder
which shall revert to the Goan Samaj
and any person holding or retaining
possession of such land shall be deemed
to be a person who has encroached upon
such land and shall be liable to ejectment
in the manner prescribed.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the
order of cancellation passed under subsection (2) may institute a suit to
establish the right claimed by him but
subject to the results of suh suit the
order of cancellation shall be final.]

10. The perusal of Section 337 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act at the relevant point
of time, will also be relevant which is as
under:-

[S. 337. Computation of the
area fixed in certain districts - For the
purposes of computing the area fixed
under any of the provisions of this Act, 2
acres shall count as 1 acre in the
following areas:-

(a) Bundelkhand;

[(aa) the Tarai and Kashipur
sub-divisions of Nainital District.]

(b) Trans Jamuna portions of
the
Allahabad,
Etawah,
Agra
and
Mathura districts;

(c) the portion of the Mirzapur
district south of Kaimur Range;

(d) Tappa Upraudh and Tappa
Chaurasi (Balai Pahar) of tahsil Sadar in
district Mirzapur;

(e)
portion
of
tahsil
Robertsganj, district Mirzapur which
lies north of Kaimur Range; and

(f) pargana Sakteshgarh and
the villages mentioned in lists 'A' and 'B'
of Schedule VI in hilly patties of
parganas Ahraura and Bhagwat of tahsil
Chunar of district Mirzapur]:

11. Perusal of Appendix-III prepared
under Rule 338 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
Rules

APPENDIX III
(See rule 338)
Secti
on of
the
Descripti
on of
suit
Period
of
limitat
Time
from
which
Pro
per
cour
4 All. Sumer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
459
Act
applicati
on and
other
proceedi
ng
ion
period
begins to
run
t
fees
198(
2)
(1)
Applicat
ion
for
setting
aside the
order of
[Land
manage
ment
Committ
ee] about
allotmen
t of land.
Six
month
s
From
the date
of
the
order of
the
[Land
Manage
ment
Committ
ee]
One
Rup
ee.

(2)
Suo
moto
action by
subdivisiona
l officer
for
setting
aside an
order of
the
[Land
Manage
ment
Committ
ee] about
allotmen
t of land.
Three
years
When
the
S.D.O.
First
knew of
the
irregular
allotmen
t of land.
Nil.

12. The perusal of Section 337 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act of the relevant point
of time demonstrate that the allotted area
measuring 34.95 acre will come to about
17.45 acres. The petitioners are five in
numbers and petitioners are claiming that
they are residing separately from their
father, as such, 17.45 acres area will be
divided in five parts, accordingly, each
petitioner was allotted 3.49 acre area while
the maximum limit for allotment as
provided under Section 198 of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act is 6 1⁄4 acre, as such, the
allotment was made to the petitioner under
permissible limit.

13. This Court in the case of Prabhu
Dayal (Supra) has held that holding in the
name of father will not be treated to be
holding of the son in view of the provisions
contained under Explanation A of Section
198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The
relevant portion of the judgement rendered
by this Court in Prabhu Dayal (Supra) is
as under:-

"Explanation I to Section 198
of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the year
1970 reads as below:-

"For the purposes of this Subsection (i) 'landless' means a person or
persons who or whose spouse or minor
children hold no land as bhumidhar,
sirdar or asami; and except in clause (c)
also held no land, as such, within two
years immediately preceding the date of
allotment; and

(ii)
"agricultural
labourer"
means a person whose main source of
livelihood or agricultural labourer or
assistance in participation with any
person in the actual performance of
agricultural operations on any land in
consideration of a right to share in the
produce grown on such land."

Since the revisional Courrt in
its order dated August 17, 1977 has
upheld the cancellation of lease in favour
of the petitioner only on the ground that
the
father
of
the
petitioners
had
sufficient land. I think that the revisional
Court
has
failed
to
examine
the
Explanation I to Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act. The bare perusal of
Explanation (I) would indicate that even
if the father had sufficient land, the
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners could be termed as landless
and this aspect of the matter has escaped
the notice of the revisional Court. The
only limitation prescribed for a person
being 'landless' is that he or she or their
spouse and their minor children should
not hold land as bhumidhar, sirdar or
asami. Father of a person has not been
included in the definition, hence the
revisional Court has patently erred in
holding the judgement of the first
Appellate Court without addressing
itself to the Explanation. As revisional
Court has based its judgement only on
the ground that the petitioners' father
had sufficient land, I have no option
but to quash the impugned judgement
and ask the revisional Court to reexamine the claim of the petitioners in
the light of the relevant law.

Had
the
revisional
Court
confirmed the judgement of the first
Appellate Court also on the ground
that the mandatory R. 173 and 174 of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were not
complied with, the result might have
been different, but the revisional Court
has confined its judgement only on one
ground to the effect that petitioner's
father had sufficient land, I think
that the ends of justice demand that
the revisional Court should be asked
to decide the claim of the petitioners
strictly in accordance with law. "

14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case reported in 2024 (164) 206,
Shyamo Devi and Others vs. State of
U.P.
and
Others
has
held
that
exercising
suo
motu
power
after
several year and not within reasonable
period, even in the proceeding where no
limitation is provided for cancellation,
cannot be permitted. Paragraph Nos.15 &
18 of the judgment rendered in Shyamo
Devi (supra) will be relevant for perusal
which is as under:-

"15. In Ibrahimpatnam's case
(supra) wherein sub-section (4) of
Section 50-B was pressed into service
discloses that the expression 'the
collector may, suo moto at any time; is
occurring while such expression is
conspicuously absent in sub-section (6)
of Section 122-(C) of UPZALR Act. In
the aforesaid case, it came to be held
by the Apex Court that suo moto power
should be exercised within a reasonable
period even in case of fraud and within a
reasonable time from the date of
discovery of fraud and it depends on
facts and circumstances of each case. It
came to be further held:

"12. The learned Single Judge
has referred to and relied on various
decisions including the decisions of this
Court as to how the use of the words "at
any time" in sub-section (4) of Section
50-B of the Act should be understood. In
the impugned order the Division Bench
of the High Court approves and affirms
the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Where a statute provides any suo motu
power of revision without prescribing
any period of limitation, the power must
be exercised within a reasonable time
and what is "reasonable time" has to be
determined on the facts of each case.

13. In the light of what is stated
above, we are of the view that the
Division Bench of the High Court was
right in affirming the view of the learned
Single Judge of the High Court that the
suo motu power under subsection (4) of
Section 50-B of the Act is to be exercised
within a reasonable time.

18. Yet another factor which
has swayed in our mind to quash the
impugned order is the fact pursuant to
4 All. Sumer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
461
the allotment made on 27.06.1994 the
allottees who are poor rustic villagers
have constructed there houses and the
allotment was made based on the
approval granted by the then subdistrict magistrate and they have been
residing in the residential building so
constructed by them for the last several
year and to unsettle the same would
result in heaping injustice to those poor
hapless persons and particularly when
the subject land has been utilized for
allotment to the poor and house-less
persons."

15. The perusal of the judgement
rendered by this Court in Prabhu Dayal
(supra) as well as judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyamo Devi
(supra), the impugned judgment passed
by Board of Revenue, cannot be sustained
in the eye of law.

16. In the instant matter, the
petitioners are claiming on the basis of
allotment for agriculture purpose made in
the year 1959 and the cancellation
proceeding has been initiated in the year
1979-80,
as
such,
the
cancellation
proceeding initiated in the instant matter
is abuse of process of law.

17. This Court in the case of
Jitendra Kumar @ Gopal (Supra) has
held
that
even
in
the
suo
motu
proceeding, the Collector cannot cancel
the lease in respect to the plot which was
allotted to the tenure holder and due to
the
operation
of
law,
he
became
bhumidhar with transferable rights. The
paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgement
rendered by this Court in Jitendra Kumar
@ Gopal (Supra) will be relevant which
are as under:-

"(7) Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the impugned orders cannot be
sustained. First of all, the notice was
barred by limitation. Secondly, the
petitioner by an order of the State had
been
declared
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights and the cancellation
of the patta was of no consequence and
thirdly the ground taken for the
cancellation of the patta was also not in
existence. If the period of limitation as is
prescribed under the Act of 1950 expires
then no notice can be issued even if there
are irregularities in the patta. Further
even if a suo motu notice is to be issued
by the Collector then also the question of
limitation would arise and notices have
to be issued well within the time
prescribed by the 1950 Act.

(8). What is more, once when a
tenure holder who was earlier granted a
patta
becomes
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable
rights,
then
howsoever
much the patta which was granted
earlier is cancelled it would not affect his
right as a bhumidhar and he shall
continue to remain a bhumidhar over
the land in question."

18. The argument advanced by Mr.
Indrasen Singh Tomar, learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel that land in dispute was
not vacant on the date of execution of lease
deed and cancellation proceeding initiated
in respect to petitioner's lease was within
limitation according to 8th amendment
made in the year 1975 in Section 198 of the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, cannot be accepted
considering the fact that lease was executed
or arrangement was made under the
C.L.R.D. scheme in the year 1959 in favour
of petitioners, as such, the cancellation
proceeding initiated in the year 1979-80 in
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect to petitioners' lease cannot be said
to be within reasonable period.

19. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances as well as the
judgement rendered by this Court in
Prabhu Dayal (Supra) where it has
been held that holding of the father will
not be included in the holding of their
sons as well as the situation of the plot
in question in the Bundelkhand area, the
impugned
order
dated
12.11.1992
passed by respondent no.1/Board of
Revenue and order dated 16.10.1982
passed by respondent no.2/Additional
District Magistrate cannot be sustained
in the eye of law and the same are
hereby set aside.

20. Writ petition stands allowed
and the authorities are directed to
record the name of petitioners over the
plot in question forthwith.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ- B No. 13075 of 2012

Rajkumar Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Singh, Ashutosh Srivastava, Govind
Krishna,
Satyendra
Nath
Srivastava,
Shreyas Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
D.D. Chauhan, Madhur Prakash, Satya
Prakash

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 49 - Bar to civil Courts
jurisdiction - Fraud - fraud cannot be
inferred on mere allegation - Fraud must
be proved and not merely alleged and
inferred. Mere assertion of fraud is not
sufficient to render the judicial proceeding
concluded by the court competent illegal
unless it is proved by credible and
unimpeachable evidence. As per plaintiff's
case, he has executed a power of attorney
in favour of Nanhu Singh to get the land
revenue entry corrected in his name
during
the
consolidation
operation.
Pleading in the plaint in that regard was
specifically

denied
by
defendantsrespondents in written statement. In
support of the aforesaid pleading no
documentary evidence was filed before
any of the three revenue courts. However,
for the first time, petitioner filed the
photostat copy of alleged power of
attorney dated 22.08.1966 as Annexure
to
the
writ
petition.
It
was
an
unregistered document bearing signature
of
the
present
petitioner
and
two
witnesses. Court held that document filed
for the first time before High Court is not
admissible in evidence if the same is a
photostat copy of unregistered document
(Para 27, 28)

 B. In the instant case , petitioner case
was that he has executed a power of
attorney
in
favour
of
Nanhu
Singh
(brother of defendant no.2 ) to look after
the property and get the name of the
plaintiff-petitioner in the consolidation
record, however, he got the name of the
plaintiff-petitioner expunged from the
record. By playing fraud on the plaintiffpetitioner,
he
got
his
name
and
defendants'
name
recorded
in
the
consolidation record. Name of defendants
was fraudulently recorded in the revenue
record which came to the knowledge of
the plaintiff-petitioner for the first time on
27.1.1987 and, consequently, he filed suit
for declaration. All the three revenue