BALLI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO fold prayers have been made in this writ petition which has been placed 'for Admission: (i) to command the respondents not to initiate any enquiry against the petitioner except in accordance with law in the matter of grant of 12 Pattas to them by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, District Allahabad, and (ii) to command the respondents not to interfere in their possession of the lands covered by the Pattas and to allot the same to others.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners they either belong to Schedule Caste or Backward class, who were granted Patta (Leases) by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, Village Jaitapur, Tahsil Handia, District Allahabad on 6-1-1996 after obtaining due approval from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, District Allahabad on 30-12-1995, copies of which are Annexures 1 to 12. Possession of the leased lands were also delivered to them ; Amaldaramad also took place in the revenue records. On an application of some strangers the Sub-Divisional Officer. Handia, District Allahabad passed an order directing the Naib-Tehsildar, Handia to make an enquiry in relation to the validity of the Pattas and for their cancellation. A copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has been appended as Annexure-25. The Naib-Tehsildar gave a notice to the Pardhan of the village telling that his presence is needed on 12- 2-1996, the day on which he will go on the spot for the purposes of enquiry. A copy of the notice of Naib-Tahsildar, is Annexure 26. In terms of Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act it is only the Collector who either suo motu or on an application of any person, if after making an enquiry himself is satisfied, can pass an order for cancellation of the Pattas, accordingly the enquiry has to be conducted by the Collector himself, whereas in the instant case enquiry is sought to be conducted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Handia which being contrary to Section 198 (4) of the Act aforementioned is wholly illegal and thus liable to be quashed.

(3.) SRI P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that none of the 12 petitioners have categorically stated as to which caste they belong rather they have merely made a vague statement that they are either Scheduled Caste or members of Backward class. The question as to whether they belong to the category of persons in whose favour settlement were required to be made being a question of fact this Court need not exercise its discretion more so when it is not the case of the petitioners that they have made any enquiry from the concerned department of the State Government conferring no powers of the Collector under the Act on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, District Allahabad who has settled the land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had not denied the statements made in the written complaint that they are members of the family of the Gram Pradhan.