SONKALI Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raising a short controversy with regard to interpretation of Section 198(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'), the present writ petition is at the instance of allottees, who claimed allotment of four plot nos. 35, 46, 211 and 560 in their favour by the Gaon Sabha. Total area of these plots is 8 Bigha and 10 Biswa. Admittedly, these plots belong to Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Two petitioners claim that they are lessees of the aforesaid plots in view of the lease-deed dated 3rd July, 1970 executed by respondent no. 1, namely, Gaon Sabha in their favour. Their names were not recorded in basic year when the consolidation operation commenced in the village. An objection under Section 9(a)(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming sirdari right over the aforesaid plots in pursuance of the lease-deed referred to above was filed. The claim was contested by the Gaon Sabha on the ground that these plots are public utility land and therefore, could not be subject matter of allotment. It was pleaded by the Gaon Sabha that plot no. 35 is being used as playground of children of the adjoining school. Plot no. 46 is a part of abadi and manure pits. Consolidation Officer allowed the claim in part. The matter was carried in appeals both at the instance of the petitioners as well as Gaon Sabha. Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide the order dated 9th December, 1974 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and dismissed the appeal of Gaon Sabha. The matter was carried in revision being Revision No. 570 by Gaon Sabha before Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide impugned order dated 31st July, 1976 allowed the revision and set aside the patta on the limited ground that patta being in excess of permissible limit as provided under Section 198(3) of the Act, is invalid. Other aspects of the case was not examined and left open.

(3.) Shri P.N. Saksena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that the patta in question is not excess of the area, as mentioned in Section 198(3) of the Act. His stand is that the patta is valid as it is in respect of two petitioners. The area of the land under the lease-deed if is divided between these two petitioners, the land in the share of each person would be within prescribed limit.