Bankey Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22911 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bankey Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1.Heard Mr. Akhtar Ali, holding brief of Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Gram Sabha.

2.With the consent of the parties, matter is being heard and disposed of without inviting counter affidavit.

¶3Brief facts of the case are that plot number 38/3 area

0.194 hectare situated in Village-Chatdang @ Baldevpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Pilibhit was initially recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as Navin Parti. Petitioner belongs to schedule caste community/ category and was landless agricultural labourer. Petitioner remained in possession over the plot No.38/3 accordingly petitioner was granted benefit of Section 122-B(4F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act vide order dated

20.07.2010 as such petitioner was recorded as bhumidhari with non-transferable right in Class-6(2) Category. Petitioner applied for recording his name as bhumidhar with transferable right, after expiry of required period, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by UP-Ziladhikari, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Pilibhit. Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 210 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, has been also dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2023, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.03.2023, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Pilibhit and order dated 24.05.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division, Barelilly.

¶4This Court vide order 26.09.2023 has passed the following order: "1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the authority vide order dated 20.7.2010. He further submitted that order dated 20.7.2010 has attained finality and petitioner was recorded as bhoomidhar with non-transferable rights. He further submitted that petitioner initiated proceeding for recording the petitioner as bhoomidhar with transferable rights which has been refused on misconceived ground that proceeding for cancellation of lease is pending. He submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner.

¶2Mr. Govind Kumar Saxana, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is granted two weeks time to obtain instruction on the point as to whether the petitioner can be refused the relief for declaring him as bhoomidhar with transferable rights when the order by which the petitioner was given benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has attained finality.

¶3Put up this matter as fresh on 13.10.2023. "

¶5Again on 13.10.2023 the Court has granted time to State to obtain instruction in the matter.

¶6In compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.10.2023, Mr. R. C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent has placed instruction dated 06.11.2023 before the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the basis of the instruction submitted that State has filed a restoration application dated 28.02.2023 against the order 20.07.2020 after thirteen years, which has been registered as Restoration Case No. T 202312560102096 and next date fixed in the matter is 14.11.2023. He further submitted that petitioner's prayer for recording his name as bhumidhar with transferable right shall be considered after disposal of aforementioned restoration application.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed on 20.07.2010 has not been set aside, as such petitioner is entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right after expiry of required period for the same. He further submitted that mere filing of Restoration application by State after 13 years cannot stop the authority to record the name of the petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable right. He further submitted that impugned orders are wholly illegal and are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that a suitable direction be issued to respondents to record the name of the petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable right forthwith.

¶9Mr. R. C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.4/ Gram Sabha further submitted that impugned orders have been rightly passed as no opportunity was afforded to the State/ Gaon Sabha before passing the order dated 20.07.2010. He further submitted that after disposal of restoration case, the prayer of the petitioner can be considered. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶10I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.

¶11There is no dispute about the fact that order dated

20.07.2010 passed under Section 122-B, 4(F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, in favour of the petitioner has not been set aside till date and petitioner's name are recorded as bhumidhar with non-transferable right with effect from 20.07.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration proceeding initiated by the State after 13 years agaisnt the order dated

13.07.2010 is pending before the court concerned.

¶12In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition perusal of order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the court will be relevant, which is as under:

नययययलयउपजजलयजधकयरर(सदर)/अजस०कलल०(

पथमशलणर) परलरभरत

वयदसस०-01/2009-10 धयरय-122 वर,4(एफ)/229 बर,

ज०वव०एवसभभ०वय०अजधवनयम

गयमचयटडयसगउफरबलदलवपपर परगनय-परलरभरत

तहसरलवजजलयपरलरभरत

ओमपकयशवनयमसरकयरसरकयर। वनणरयय

-

पशनगतवयदतहसरलदयरपरलरभरतससतपवतवदनयसक12.04.2010

कलआधयरपरइस

नययययलयममययजजतहहआ।तहसरलदयरपरलरभरतनलअपनरउकररपयटरममअवगतकरयययहह

वकआवलदकगणपपतवतलकरयम,

ववयसकललयलपपतउमरययलयलवनवयसरगयम-

चयसटडयसगउफर वलदेवपुरeअनुसूवचतeजावतeके eहैeएवंeइनके eपासe1.260 हे०eसेeकमeभूवमeह।ै eउकeवयवकeका पशनगतeभूवमeगाटाeसं०-42eरकवाeti.117eहे०eवeगाटाeसं०-71eरकवा-eti.085 हे०eकु लe2 रवकताe रकवा-eti.202 eहे०eपरeओमपकाशeपुतe वतलकरामeवनवासीe गामeचांटeडांगeउफ बलदेवपुरeकाe एवंeगाटाe सं०-38/3 eरकवा-0.194 eहे०eपरeबांके e लालeपुतe उमरायeलाल वनवासीeगामeकाeकबजाeवदनांकe13.5.2007eसेeपूवरeकाeह।ै eसथलeपरeभूवमeकीeपमै ाइशeकी जाe चकु ीe ह।ै e आवेदक e धारा-122 वी,4(एफ) eकाe लाभ e पानेe के e पातe ह।ै e अनत e मे 122 वी,4(एफ)eकाeलाभeवदयेeजानेeकीeसंसतुवतeकीeगयीeह।ै वादeदजरeरजजसटरeहोकरeपकगणeकोeसममनeवनगरतeवकयेeगयेeजोeवनषपादनeउपरानतeसंलग पतावलीeहहये।eपवतपकीeदाराeउदर णeखतौनी,eफदरeखसरा,eजो०च०आकारeपत-45eवeइस नयायालयeदाराeपूवरeपाररतeआदेशeवदनांकe15.2.2010eवादeसं०-05/2009-10eधारा-202 ज०वव०एवंe भू०वय०अजधवनयमeगामeचांटeडांगeउफर e बलदेवपुरeपरगनाe तहसीलeवeजजला पीलीभीतeकीeछायापवतeपसतुतeकीeगयी। मैनेeउभयपकोeके eववदानeअजधवकाeकीeबहनeकोeसुनाeएवंeपतावलीeपरeउपलबधeसमसत साकयeकाeभलीeभांवतeपररशीलनeवकया।eतहसीलदारeपीलीभीतeनेeअपनीeसंसतवतeवदनांक 12-4-2010eमेeअवगतeकरायाeओमपकाशeपुतeवतलकराम,eवeवांके eलालeपुतeउगरायeलाल वनवासीeगाम-चांट-डांगeउफर eबलदेवपुरeलगातारeकावबजeकाशतeहeै एवंeअनुसूवचतeजावतeके e… ह,ै eशासनादेशeके eअनुसारeमईe2007eसेeपूवरeसेeकबजेदारeहोनेeवeअनुसूवचतeजावतeके eधोबी होनेeके eकारणe122 वी(4 एफ)eकाeलाभeपानेeके eपातeह,ै eपतावलीeमेeसंलगeजो०च०आकार पत-45eमेeगाटाeसं०-38,गाटाeसं०-42eवeगाटाeसं०-71eनवीनeपरतीeअंवकतeह।ै eवादeसं०-05/2009-10 eधारा-202 ज०वव०एवंe भू०वय०अजधवनयमeगामeचांटडांगeउफर e बलदेवपुर परगनाe तहसीलeवeजजलाe पीलीभीतeमेe पाररतeआदेशeवदनांक e15.2.2010 eके e अंतगरत पवतपकीगणeकाeआसामीeपटाeपांचeवषरeकीeअवजधeपूणरeहोeजानेeके eकारणeवनरसतeवकयाeगया रह,ै eजजससेeवादीगणeकाeपशनगतeभूवमeपरeकबजाeवदनांक e13-5-2007eसेeपूवeकाeहोना पमावणतeह।ै eपवतपकीगणeकोeधारा-122 बी(4 एफ) eज०वव०एवंeभू०वय०अजध०eकाeलाभ वदयाeजानाeनयायोवचतeह।ै आदेश अतःeउकeवववेचनाeके eपररपेकयeमेeभूवमeबसथतeगामeचांटडांगeउफर eबलदेवपुरeपरगनाeतहसील वeजजलाeपीलीभीतeखाताeसं०-269eगाटाeसं०-38/3eरकबा-0.194eहे०eपरeबांके eलालeपतु रउमरायeलालeवनवासीeगाम-चांटडांगeउफeबलदेवपुरeवeखाताeसं०-26eगाटाeसं०-42eरकबा-

0.117eहे०eवeगाटाeसं०-71eरकबा-0.815 हे०eकु लe2eवकताeरकबा-0.202 हे०eपरeओम रपकाशeपुतeवतलकरामeवनवासीeगाम-चांटडांगeउफeबलदेवपुरeधारा-122 बी(4 एफ)ज०वव०एवं भू०वय०eअजध०eके eअंतगरतeशासनादेशeके eअनुपालनeमेeशेणी-2eदजरeअवभलेखeवकयाeजाये। आदेशeकीe एकeपमावणतeपवतe तहसीलदारeपीलीभीतeकोeअनुपालनाथरe पवे षतeकीe जाये। पतावलीeवादeआवशयकeकायरवाहीeसंवचतeअवभलेखागारeकीeजाये। वदनांकe20-07-2010 (पी०एस०राणा) उपजजलाजधकारीe(सदर) अजस०कलेकटर(पथमeशेणी) पीलीभीत। आजeयहeआदेशeमेरeे दाराeसवतजथeहसताकरeहोकरeखलेeनयायालयeमेeउदोवषतeहहआ।ु वदनांकe20-07-2010 (पर०एस०रयणय)

उपजजलयजधकयरर(सदर) अजस०कललकटर(

पथमशलणर) परलरभरत।

¶13Perusal of order reveals that State was afforded opportunity before passing the impugned order under Section 122-B, 4 (F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act as such filing restoration application after 13 years by the State is nothing but in order to harass the petitioner who was granted benefit under Section 122-B 4(F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act in accordance with law.

¶14It is also material that order dated 20.07.2010 has not been set aside till date and petitioner's name is recorded as bhumidhar with non-transferable right with effect from

20.07.2010, as such, petitioner is entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable right.

¶15Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and 24.03.2023 passed by respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, therefore, impugned order are hereby set aside and writ petition stands allowed. Respondent No. 3, Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Pilibhit is directed to record the name of petitioner over plot No. 38/3, area 0.194 hectare as Bhumidhar with transferable right within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent No.3. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 PS* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad