LALLOO RAM Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, who claim to be the heirs and legal representatives of those, who had donated land under the Bhoodan Movement, have filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents 2 and 3, namely, the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and the Collector, Fatehpur to record their names against the aforesaid land in the revenue records of the village after expunging the name of Sarvodaya Mandal. The grievance of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the Government order dated 3-12-1976 the said respondents are bound to mutate their names in place of Sarvodaya Mandal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and t,he learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has however based his claim for appropriate writ on the Government order dated 13-12-1976, copy of which has been filed as Annexure I to the wait petition. In this order the Government has referred to the difficulties experienced by the small cultivators of three villages to whom the donated land was allotted in view of the fact that the and continued to be recorded in the name of Bhoodan Committee and, not in the name of those to whom it was allotted. The Government, as such suggested for expunging the name of Bhoodan Committee from the revenue records and in its place for recording the name of original tenure holder. On this basis the learned counsel has submitted that as the Government has now directed in 1976 for the recording of the name of the original tenure holder in place of Bhoodan Committee, they are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records of the village concerned. It is not. possible for us to agree with the learned counsel. It has not been pleaded in the writ petition that the Bhoodan declaration issued after the land was donated by the petitioners' ancestors stands superseded or cancelled. It has also not been pleaded that the grant of donated land to the persons belonging to poorer section of society has been cancelled. So long as the declaration granted under the Act remains in tact, the original tenure holders cannot have any right, title and interest in the donated land. After donation has been accepted the donors are divested of the ownership and cannot lay any claim to such a land. It is, as such, not open to the Government to direct the recording of the names of the original tenure holder in place of the Bhoodan Committee. It is not disputed that there is no provision under which such an order, as is contained in Annexure I, can be issued by the Government Under the circumstances, it is not possible for us to issue a writ of mandamus for enforcing the administrative order of the Government, which is contrary to the provisions contained in the Act.