Pet it ioner v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

Mr. I .D. Paliwal, learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. Ms. Raj ni Supyal, lear ned Brief Holder for t he St at e. JUDGM EN T: ( p e r M r . G. N a r e n d a r C.J.) The pet it ioner is before t his Court , being aggrieved by t he order of t he Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, whereby t he Tribunal was pleased t o dism iss t he claim pet it ion.

2. The fact s, in a nut shell, are t hat pet it ioner was discharging t he dut ies as t he S.D.M./ Assist ant Collect or 1 st Class, Bazpur and decided a review case, bearing No.22/ 94, inst it ut ed invoking t he provisions of Sect ion 229- B of t he Z.A. & L.R. Act , in which t he St at e Governm ent was arrayed as defendant nos.9 & 10. The allegat ions are t hat , in t he course of adj udicat ing t he declarat ory suit , t he pet it ioner has declared t he right s of t he claim ant s t herein, on t he basis of adverse possession, 1 and t he land, over which such declarat ion was issued, was a revenue land belonging t o t he Governm ent .

3. The learned counsel for t he pet it ioner would cont end t hat t he Tribunal has failed t o appreciat e t he fact t hat rem edy on j udicial side was available and in fact , an appeal has been preferred by t he St at e and t he sam e has been set aside; and in t hat view, no loss was suffered. The fact t hat a charge sheet was issued t o t he pet it ioner, and t hat t he enquiry was conduct ed in accordance wit h t he Rules are not in disput e. The only ground t hat is canvassed by t he pet it ioner is t hat t he pet it ioner was discharging dut ies as a Court and, being a Judge, he is ent it led for prot ect ion.

4. The said subm ission cannot be appreciat ed for t he short reason t hat t he pet it ioner was discharging dut ies as a S.D.M. and in t he discharge of t he dut ies as a S.D.M., was also discharging cert ain quasi- j udicial funct ions; t hat apart a reading of t he provisions of Sect ion 229 and Sect ion 229- B would clearly obviat e any det ailed discussion in t his regard. Sect ion 229- B of t he ZA & LR Act reads as under: - 2 2 9 B. D e cl a r a t o r y su i t b y p e r so n cl a i m i n g t o b e a n a sa m i o f a h o l d i n g o r p a r t t h e r e o f . - ( 1) Any person claim ing t o be an asam i of a holding or any part t hereof, whet her exclusively or j oint ly wit h any ot her person, m ay sue t he landholder for a declarat ion of his 2 right s as asam i in such holding or part , as t he case m ay be. ( 2) I n any suit under sub- sect ion ( 1) any ot her person claim ing t o hold as asam i under t he land- holder shall be im pleaded as defendant . ( 3) The provisions of sub- sect ions ( 1) and ( 2) shall m ut at is m ut andis apply t o a suit by a person claim ing t o be a bhum idhar wit h t he am endm ent t hat for t he word "landholder" t he words " t he St at e Governm ent ” and t he Gaon Sabha are subst it ut ed t herein.

5. Sub- sect ion ( 1) of Sect ion 229- B enables any person, claim ing t o be an Asam i, t o sue t he landholder for declarat ion of his right s as Asam i. The word ‘Asam i’ is found in Clause ( 3) of t he 4 clauses det ailed under Sect ion 129 - classes of t enure.

6. Be t hat as it m ay, as not ed supra, t he suit m ay be inst it ut ed against t he landholder, and not t he St at e Governm ent . The pet it ioner, while discharging dut ies was dut y bound t o ascert ain, as t o whet her t he said proceedings it self was m aint ainable. That apart , we see t hat t he pet it ioner has been let off wit h a light penalt y of st oppage of one increm ent wit h cum ulat ive effect .

7. The right t o ent ert ain and discharge quasi- j udicial funct ions is not a license for t he Officer t o act arbit rarily. I n t he fact s involved, it is apparent t hat t he order cam e t o be passed wit hout reference t o t he various provisions of t he Act .

8. The Tribunal has heard in det ail and considered all 3 aspect s of t he m at t er and has passed a considered order, upholding t he punishm ent of t he penalt y im posed. The scope of review before t his Court being lim it ed t o any apparent illegalit y, no such illegalit y is point ed out .

9. The aspect , as t o whet her t he provision of Sect ion 334 would inure t o t he benefit of t he pet it ioner, also need not det ain us for long. Sect ion 334 of t he ZA & LR Act reads as under: - liable “ 3 3 4 . Pr o t e ct i o n o f a ct i o n t a k e n u n d e r t h i s ( 1) No officer or servant of t he A ct . Governm ent shall be in any civil or crim inal proceeding in respect of any act done or purport ing t o be done under t his Act or under any rules m ade t hereunder, if t he act was done in good fait h and in t he course of execut ion of t he dut ies or t he discharge of funct ions, im posed by or under t his Act ( 2) No suit or ot her legal proceeding shall lie against t he St at e Governm ent for any dam age caused or likely t o be caused or any inj ury suffered or likely t o be suffered by virt ue of any provisions of t his Act or by anyt hing in good fait h done or int ended t o be done in pursuance of t his Act or any rules m ade t hereunder.”

10. The charges are under t he disciplinary rules, and cannot be const rued as civil or crim inal proceedings. The m aint ainabilit y of t he disciplinary proceedings has also been gone int o by t he Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, which has rendered t he findings t he affirm at ive. No error in t he said findings is point ed out . 4 I n t hat view of t he m at t er, t he writ pet it ion is m isconceived and is accordingly rej ect ed. ( G. N A REN D A R, C.J.) ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Dat ed: 06.03.2025 BS 5