ABDUL SALAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order of Board of Revenue refusing to accept recommendation of Additional Commissioner that lease granted in favour of petitioner, being in accordance with law, were not liable to be cancelled under S. 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1951. It has been found by Additional Collector that after a resolution was passed by Land Management Committee to allot the land in dispute to landless labourers and Harijans it was announced by beats of drums and after proper proclamation a list showing order of preference amongst the applicants was prepared which was accepted by the Committee and the proposal to allot the land to petitioner and three Harijans, was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It found that although all formalities of allotment were complied yet it was not possible to say that while allotting no partiality was done. In revision the Additional Commissioner held that the record did not indicate any irregularity or illegality. He further found that Additional Collector did not mention the provisions of Gaon Samaj Manual or Zamindari Abolition Rules which were violated. In his opinion mere feeling that there was a lot of agitation against the allotment, that lease have not been granted impartially was no ground for their cancellation. He therefore recommended to the Board of Revenue for setting aside of the order passed by Additional Collector. The Board of Revenue did not agree because the recommendation was not borne out by facts. It found that Additional Collector had come to conclusion that not only the Land Management Committee but Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar had acted very carelessly in dealing with the allotment of this land and the manner prescribed for such allotment was not strictly adhered to.

(2.) That the order of Board of Revenue proceeds on assumptions does not admit of any doubt. It failed to draw distinction between evidence led by parties and finding recorded by Additional Collector. The learned counsel for Gaon Sabha was at pains to point out even one sentence in the order of Additional Collector that the procedure provided was not observed or that Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar acted carelessly. On the other hand he found that formality of allotment was completed. The Land Management Committee has been empowered to admit a person as an asami or sirdar under Sections 195 and 197 on vacant land or land which vests in it and grant lease under S. 198 after following the procedure and observing the preference provided under sub-sec. (2) subject to approval by Sub-Divisional Officer. The lease so granted is liable to be cancelled under S. 198 (4) if the Collector either on his own motion or application of any person aggrieved by allotment is satisfied that allotment is irregular what is irregular has not been defined in the Act or the Rules. It has therefore to be understood in its normal, popular and commonsense meaning of not being contrary to law.

(3.) In para. 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that on 22nd Nov., 73 the Land Management Committee resolved to grant lease to landless labourers and it is further asserted that except petitioners and three Harijans nobody applied and the Land Management Committee by its resolution dated 16-12-1973 resolved to grant leases to these persons who were verified by the Supervisor Kanungo and Lekhpal to be landless agriculturist labourer and the leases were approved by Sub-Divisional Officer. These allegations have not been denied. The procedure for allotment is provided in Rr. 173 to 175 of Z. A. Rules. Rule 175 provides that if the number of applicants does not exceed the number intended to be settled on the land in respect of which announcement has been made under R. 173, the Committee shall examine the legibility of the persons included in the list in Z. A. Form 57-A and take a decision regarding plots of land to be settled with each such person-As stated above the Additional Collector itself found that the procedure provided in rules under Z. A. and L. R. Act of preparing the list of preference etc. was observed and no irregularity was found in it. The Land Management Committee therefore when it granted the patta in favour of petitioner after observing the procedure as provided in R. 175 did not commit any irregularity nor could it be considered to be against provisions of law. The basis adopted by the Addl. Collector that there were certain Harijans in the village or certain other landless labourers does not appear to be sound. This could have been a valid ground if the formality of announcement by beat of drum etc. had not been observed and the villagers did not have any notice or the list which was prepared by the Land Management Committee in respect of application was found to be irregular but in absence of any of these findings the allotment could not be held to be irregular merely because there were other Harijans or there were other landless labourers although they were not interested nor they had made any application. The finding of the Additional Collector that as there were other Harijans and landless labourers the Land Management Committee could not apply its mind effectively to the application filed tor allotment appears to be based neither on evidence nor on any legal foundation, There is no requirement either in the Act or in the Rules to consider the cases of persons who did not apply at all nor could the allotment be cancelled because there were certain other persons who could have applied but did not apply. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha despite his strenuous arguments has failed to show any evidence or any finding in tho order of the Additional Collector or the Board of Revenue from which it could be gathered that the finding that allotment was irregular was based on any evidence led on behalf of the respondents.