MOINUDDIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.2.1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner, respondent no. 2, and the order dated 6.6.1984 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., at Allahabad in the proceedings under section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short the Act against the petitioner.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that plot nos. 38/2, 2,55,56 and 201/168 of village Birbhan alias Malikan Gaon, Pargana Bahariabad, district Ghazipur for short ' the land in dispute' are the subject matter of dispute in the present case. The land in dispute was originally owned by Mohammad Tariq, Smt. Abdi Bibi and Kamal Ahmad who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 or thereafter. On their migration from India to Pakistan the land in dispute was declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The land in dispute was thereafter acquired by the Government of India vide Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation Notification no. 1/3/1157- B-lll, November 26, 1957 under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, for short the 1954 Act, as it is evident from Annexure 1 to the writ petition and Annexure RA 1 to the rejoinder affidavit after following the procedure prescribed under the law. The land in dispute was ultimately sold in favour of the petitioner and sale certificate was issued in his favour by the Managing Officer/Assistant Custodian, Lucknow, on 5.8.1970. After purchase of the land in dispute the petitioner came to know that the said land, without following the procedure prescribed under the law and in contravention of the provision of the 1954 Act was allotted in favour of the contesting respondents no. 4 to 9. The petitioner, therefore, immediately thereafter applied for cancellation of the allotment under section 198 (4) of the Act. The application for cancellation was filed mainly on the grounds that the evacuee property could not be allotted and the allotment was made without following the procedure prescribed for the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act as well as the rules framed thereunder. On the application filed by the petitioner the Collector issued notices to the contesting respondents who contested the application claiming that the allotment was made in their favour in accordance with the law. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The statement of Likhpal Sri Sheo Poojan Chaubey was also recorded. The Additional Collector from the material on the record, recorded findings on the material issues against the contesting respondents. It was held that the allotment was made without following the procedure prescribed under the Act. No list of land less persons was prepared and allotment was made in favour of kith and kin of the Pradhan and also in favour of the Up Pradhan of the village in contravention of the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Having recorded the said findings, the allotment was cancelled by the Additional Collector and damages were also imposed upon the contesting respondents by its judgment and order dated 26.7.1975. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Additional Collector the contesting respondents filed a revision before the respondent no.2. The respondents no. 2 took the view that the Additional Collector has held that the allotment was made in contravention of the provisions of the Rules framed under the Act, it should have also decided the other issues involved in the case. He, therefore, by his judgment and order dated 26.2.1976 made a reference to the respondent no. 1 recommending it to set aside the order of the Additional Collector and to remand the case to the Additional Collector for decision afresh. The respondent no. 1 neither accepted nor rejected the reference but the said respondent itself proceeded to decide the case on merit and ultimately by judgment and order dated 6.6.1984 allowed the revision. Paragraphs no. 8 and 9 of the said judgment (operative portion) are quoted below:-

(3.) As stated above, the present petition has been filed challenging the validity of the orders passed by respondents no. 1 and 2.