BANWARI NATHOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN agricultural land was declared surplus in village Kurdi Khera Chahchak alias Kalluwala Jahanpur Uttari in the district of Saharanpur, under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The surplus land was allotted temporarily to one Surja and the third respondent, Basiram. After the proceedings by way of appeals etc. were over the Prescribed Authority proceeded to make permanent allotments. Petitioner was one of the applicants. Tahsildar Saharanpur recommended the case of the petitioner whereupon the Prescribed Authority by his order dated June 30, 1970 allotted a few plots of land to the petitioner and a lease was also executed in his favour. In the meantime the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed objections before the Prescribed Authority disputing the allotment in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that he was not a landless labourer but was living with his father who had plenty of land. After hearing the petitioner the Prescribed Authority set aside the allotment in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was not a landless labourer inasmuch as he was living with his father who had sufficient agricultural land and that this fact had been suppressed by the petitioner at the time of allotment. He also found that the Tahsildar had omitted to make a proper report. The Prescribed Authority also observed that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were persons to whom the land had been allotted temporarily and they had preference when the question of permanent allotment arose. The petitioner is aggrieved and has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority that the latter had no power to review its earlier order. The Prescribed Authority relying upon Section 37 of the Act held that he had inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and he could correct any mistake made by him, and, as such, he was competent to review his earlier order of allotment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the same contentions before me. According to him there is no provision in the Act permitting the Prescribed Authority to review its order of settlement of surplus land. According to him Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and, as such, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order.

(3.) IN another case Pancha v. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1845 of 1971, decided on 17-9-1974 (All)). I have held that an order of allotment of surplus land is not a judicial order inasmuch as it does not decide any dispute relating to the land. The distribution of surplus land is a bounty by the Government and no one has any right to claim such a bounty and if (in) allotting land to a person the Prescribed Authority feels that it had made a mistake it can certainly review that order, the order being purely administrative one.