PADAM CHANDS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal controversy involved in the present petition is as to whether the allotment of the disputed land Khasra plot Nos. 926 and 928 is the land ear-marked for Abadi sites in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 122C of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and as provided under Rule 115L of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). If the disputed land is not ear-marked as Abadi sites as referred to in Rule 115L of the Rules, whether it is an Abadi site vested in Gaon Sabha liable to be allotted under Rule 115M of the rules.

(2.) A complaint was made by one Kuber Shanker. On the basis of which proceedings under Section 122C (6) of the Act were initiated by the Collector. The petitioners filed their objections and the evidence in support of their contention that these were Abadi sites which vested in Gaon Sabha for which prior permission for allotment as required under Rule 115N of the Rules was taken from the Assistant Collector and thereafter the allotment was made under Rule 115M of the Rules and an amount equal to 40 times of the rent calculated at hereditary rates was deposited. The Land Management Committee in its resolution allotted the disputed land for housing sites as the petitioners were treated to be the residents of village who did not have any site to construct the residential accommodation.

(3.) The objections of the petitioners were considered by the Collector and it was held that the disputed land was the land ear-marked for Abadi sites under Section 122C of the Act and without complying the requirements of allotment to preferential category, the same could not be allotted in favour of petitioners. The petitioners did not fall in any of the preferential category and as such, the allotment proceedings arc not in accordance with the law and the allotment made by the Land Management Committee would not confer any valid right in favour of the petitioners. It has also been found that the petitioners were having other accommodation and have sufficient means and they would not come in any of the preferential category of landless agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village.