JAGDISH Vs. SHAUKEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were initiated against the petitioners. The application of the complainant was rejected by the order dated 24.4.03, passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad. Against that order the complainant filed a revision which has been allowed by the order dated 10.10.2005, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and the pattas of the petitioners have been cancelled. Reliance has been placed by the revisional court upon the affidavits of eight members of the Land Management Committee that their signatures were obtained on blank papers on which the resolution was subsequently prepared. The resolution for allotting the land passed by the Land Management Committee dated 21.7.2002 was therefore forged. It is conceded that there were only 13 members of the Land Management Committee. The finding is based upon material. It cannot be said that the said finding is perverse or suffers from any illegality which may call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no reliance could have been placed upon the affidavits of the members of the Land Management Committee unless their statements on oath were recorded. He relies upon a decision of the Board of Revenue in Ram Singh v. Ram Sewak 1981 (2) RD 133. In that case the Collector had found the lease to be validly executed but the Additional Commissioner had made a reference to the Board to set aside the order on the ground that opportunity to lead oral evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses who had given affidavits had not been granted. The Board accepted the reference. It held that the general rule is that evidence has to be taken in accordance with provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 4, C.P.C. and that evidence on affidavit is permissible only with the permission of the Court to prove particular facts in view of Section 30, C.P.C. and Order XIX, Rule 1, C.P.C.

(3.) Section 341 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act makes applicable the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act. If a different procedure is contemplated under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, the procedure under the C.P.C. would not be applicable. Section 198 (4) and (5) read as follows: (4) The Asstt. Collector in-charge of the sub-division may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any, (5) No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under Sub-section (4), unless a notice to show case is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other Court or authority on August 18, 1980. It is clear from the provisions of Sub-section (4) that the Collector has to make an enquiry in the manner prescribed. All that Sub-section (5) requires is a notice to show cause. The rule which governs the matter is Rule 178A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The only requirement in the said Rule is that the Land Management Committee as well as the affected persons shall be made parties in the enquiry and no order shall be passed without opportunity of hearing to them. It is not disputed that opportunity was granted to the petitioners. The contention of Sri Utpal Chatterji counsel for the petitioners that full trial has to be undergone does not appear to have any force in view of the provisions of Section 198 (4) and (5) of the Act and Rule 178A. The criteria for allotment and the manner in which it is to be made and for cancellation of the allotment is provided in Section 198 of the Act and Rules 173 to 178A of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The purpose of the enquiry contemplated in Section 198 (4) is to find out any irregularity in the allotment. An elaborate procedure as in a full trial would defeat the object of the enquiry as it would take a very long time and in the meanwhile the allottee would continue to enjoy the possession. Reasonable opportunity depends upon the facts of the case. Under the C.P.C. a case is instituted by a party. The Collector however under Section 198 (4) can exercise suo motu powers to initiate the enquiry and cancel the patta. For these reasons the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to an enquiry under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The decision of the Board cited above does not lay down the correct law. Opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners. It cannot therefore be said that the proper procedure was not followed. If the petitioners are eligible and there is nothing adverse to disqualify them, it would be open to them to seek allotment along with others who may be eligible and interested. The allotment shall be made in accordance with law. No opinion upon the petitioners claim for allotment is being expressed by this Court. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.