PREM SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER AGRA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava for the fourth respondent. Despite notices having been issued to the fifth respondent on 02 January 2008, none has appeared on his behalf. In any case and bearing in mind the fact that the fifth respondent was only a complainant, the Court finds no justification to defer final disposal of the instant writ petition on that score.

(2.) The petitioners belonging to the Scheduled Castes were landless labourers in possession of the plots in question. They claimed the benefits conferred by Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ["the Act"] in terms of which it was asserted that since they were in possession on the relevant date they were entitled to be declared as Bhumidhars with non transferable rights. The provisions of Section 122-B(4-F) is in the following terms:-

(3.) It appears that the fifth respondent made a complaint on 22 August 1997 alleging that the petitioners had been extended the benefits of that provision even though they were not entitled. By an ex parte order of 18 November 1998, the SDM cancelled the earlier orders by which the benefits of the aforementioned provision had been extended to the petitioners. While passing the order impugned the SDM placed reliance upon various decisions including that rendered by the Court in Ramdin v. Board of Revenue,1994 RevDec 393 to observe that the provisions of sub-section (4-F) was only confined to protection of possession and could not be viewed as conferring title on the petitioners. It becomes significant to note that apart from a reproduction of the allegations made by the fifth respondent, no other independent findings have been returned by the SDM in respect of the alleged ineligibility of the petitioners to the benefits of Section 122-B(4-F). Although a report of the Lekhpal is alluded to, it becomes pertinent to note that the said report has neither been brought on the record by the respondents nor has any other evidence been filed to establish that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in question on the relevant date or otherwise ineligible to be extended the benefit of that provision.