GOKUL RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is against the judgment of Sari Syed Husain, Member, Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad, dated 19-12-1973, in revision No. 903 of 1972-73 Badaun, Gokul Ram v. Gaon Sabha and arises out of proceedings under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. It has been alleged that the Land Management Committee of village Jagat had let out the disputed plot to the Petitioner on 30-4-65, against the provisions of law, hence a prayer was made for cancellation of the allotment of land in favour of the Petitioner. The District Revenue Officer, Budaun vide his order dated 15-11-68 had cancelled the lease. In appeal, the aforesaid order of the District Revenue Officer was set aside and the case was remanded for re-trial. After remand a notice was issued to the Petitioner and the proceedings were initiated against him. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Budaun through his judgment dated 30-3-72 has cancelled the lease in favour of the Petitioner with regard to plots Nos. 297, 867 and 943 but did not cancel the lease executed by the Land Management Committee in respect of plot No. 9 (Annexure A-l) attached to the writ petition. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 30-10-72 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Budaun but could not succeed as is evident from Annexure A-2 attached to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed by the revisional Court through its judgment dated 19-12-1973 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended before me that the provisions of paragraph 58 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhoomi Prabandhak Samiti Manual are ultra-vires and against the provisions of the Act, hence the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, namely the Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, the Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Badaun have patently erred in relying upon the aforesaid provision and have thereby acted illegally in negativing the claim of the Petitioner. His main grievance in this connection is that under the provisions of Section 195 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Land Management Committee could admit any person as Sirdar to any land (other than land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132) where the land is vacant land and the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 or the land has come into possession of the Land Management Committee under Section 194 or any other provision of this Act. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner since the disputed land had vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Land Management Committee had absolute power to let out the whole land in any manner it liked. He has emphasised that paragraph 58 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhoomi Prabandhak Samiti Manual puts a restriction to the effect that the Bhoomi Prabandhak Samiti should in no circumstances let out the uncultivated land if, it is less than 10 per cent of the total area of the village, hence the aforesaid provision is against the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and are ultra-vires and should not have been relied upon by the Revenue Authorities. In this connection the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the ruling in Radha Krishna v. Compensation Officer Meja Allahabad, 1954 AIR(All) 202, wherein it has been observed as below:

(3.) Emphasizing the above observations the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the provisions of paragraph 58 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhoomi Prabandhak Samiti Manual have been made under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and are against the provisions of the Act. To my mind the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner are devoid of merits. Section 230(J) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act empowers the State Government to make rules for the procedure of admission to land under Sections 195 and 197 of the Act No. 1 of 1951. If the State Government has indicated guidelines for admission to land under Section 195 in paragraph 58 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhoomi Pra-bandhak Samiti Manual it has not acted against the provisions of the Act No. 1 of 1951. The provision of Section 195 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not provide that whole uncultivated land belonging to the Gaon Sabha must be let out to deserving persons. In this view of the matter if the State Government has provided through rules that 10 per cent of the total area of the village land should be reserved for planned use; that is, for fuel plantation, fruit orchards, pastures and compost pits etc. it has in no manner acted against provisions of the Act No. 1 of 1951. In my opinion the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard are misconceived and ill founded.