KADHORE Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pres­ent writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act initiated against the petitioner at the in­stance of Shiv Shanker and Rajesh Singh private respondents herein. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The case of the petitioner is that Gata Nos. 1038, 1032 and 1035 were allotted to the petitioner on 22.1.1988 by the Land Management Committee after following prescribed procedure at law. Subsequently, it was discovered by the petitioner that the said plots are not fit for cultivation and are 'BEEHAR' and 'CONCRETE' they ap­proached the Gaon Sabha to change the said plots with plot Nos. 261 and 268. A report was called for and on the basis of the report of Tehsildar dated 31.1.1988, the plots were exchanged. An application for cancellation of said allotment of plots to the petitioner was filed by the contesting respondents herein by invoking section 198 (4) of the Act on the ground that the said exchange of plots is not permissible in law. The case of the contesting respondents on the other hand, is that on 22.1.1988 only a resolution was passed by the land Man­agement Committee proposing to allot the aforestated three plot Nos. 1308, 1302 and 1305 to the petitioner but as a matter of fact, the said proposal was not found ap­proved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and before obtaining approval the peti­tioner applied for the exchange of aforesaid plots with plot Nos. 261 and 268. It was stated that the exchange is not possible in view of the fact that there is difference of move than 10% in the land revenue. The parties ted their evidence in support of their respective cases. The Collector, Kanpur Dehat, Kanpur by the order dated 29.8.1991 held that the exchange as set out by the petitioner is not permissible under section 161(1) of the Act. According to him, only bhumidhari plot can be exchanged with another bhumidhari land or with the land of Gaon Sabha or local authority.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner was not bhumidhar being lessee, therefore, he could not apply for the exchange. The said order was contested by the petitioner by way of a revision being revision No. 3 of 1991 before the Commissioner who by his order dated 7th June, 1993 as per the then prevailing law recommended to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Kanpur Dehat. It was registered as reference No. 74 of 92-93 before the Board of Revenue who by the impugned order dated 11th December 2000 disagreed with the recommendation made by the Commissioner and it approved the order passed by the Collector.

(3.) IN contra, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that on a plain reading of section 161 (1) of the Act, the exchange is not possible.