BHURA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing at length, Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-party caveator under Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the Rules of Court, 1952 and Mr. Amresh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. No one appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) Plots of land comprised in Gata No.419, admeasuring a total of 0.9790 hectare, situate in Village Asharpur, Tehsil and District Sambhal were allotted in the year 2000 in favour of four brothers, to wit, Bhura, Akhtar, Munna and Tahir, all sons of Ishtiaq Hussain. Bhura was allotted Gata No.419/1, admeasuring 0.2460 hectare, Akhtar Gata No.419/2, admeasuring 0.2460 hectare, Munna Gata No.419/3, admeasuring 0.2440 hectare and Tahir Gata No.419/4, admeasuring 0.2430 hectare. They were granted agricultural patta by a resolution of the Land Management Committee, Village Asharpur dtd. 15/1/2000. The resolution received the approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal on 27/2/2000. There is nothing objectionable to the said settlement, but for one fact that renders it invalid and utterly vitiated. All the allotments when made on 15/1/2000 by the Land Management Committee, the Gram Pradhan was Kallu son of Ishtiaq Hussain, the fifth brother of these allottees. Sec. 28-C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') reads:

(3.) A reading of the orders impugned passed by the two Authorities below, that is to say, the Collector, Sambhal dtd. 6/9/2023 and the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner-II, Moradabad Region, Moradabad dtd. 26/9/2023, show that they are categorical in their findings that the allotment was made in the petitioners' favour, when theirbrother was the Village Pradhan. It is true that the embargo under Sec. 28-C against acquisition of interest in land of the Gaon Sabha is upon a member or an office bearer of the Gram Panchayat or the Land Management Committee without the Collector's permission in writing and not upon members of his family as such. However, the provision does stipulate very clearly that the embargo upon the office bearer would extend to acquisition of interest or share in a licence or lease etc., relating to Gaon Sabha land by the office bearer 'through a partner or otherwise'.