High Court · 2025

26.06.2006, Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi recorded the fact that a perusal of the aforesaid report clearly indicates that the land on which the patta has been given to the petitioner belongs to Category 6 land on which Ganga river, sand and forest land and Gaon Sabha is recorded which is for public purposes and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors reported in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3215 and cancelled the said patta directing the authority to record the name of Gaon Sabha in place of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue duly considered and appreciated the contentions of the petitioner that the proceedings are conducted in gross violation of principle of nature justice inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancellation of the patta but instated of recording any finding in this regard revisional authority only considered the facts mentioned in the order of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi and stated that no rights would vest in the aforesaid land which falls under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and rejected the revision.

4. In the present writ petition while assailing both the aforesaid orders, counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a patta was granted in favour of the petitioner, then the same could have been cancelled only in accordance with law. He submits that the provisions pertaining to cancellation of patta have been duly provided for under Section 198(4),(5) and (6) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which is as follows:- "4. The Collector 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 cause 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. (6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued- (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of seven years from the said date; and (b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, which ever be later."

5. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the statute itself provides for a due procedure for cancellation of the allotment where it would be necessary to issue a show cause notice and further Clause-6 provides time period within which such cancellation can be made.

6. I find that the petitioner has taken this ground in the revision which is duly mentioned in the impugned order itself but surprisingly, no finding has been returned by the Board of Revenue clearly indicating that they have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In case the order was passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, it was necessary to have considered the said ground and in case it was found to be correct quash the order against which the revision was filed.

7. A perusal of the impugned orders itself indicate that neither was any notice issued nor any opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner before cancellation of the patta and merely on receipt of an ex parte report by the Lekhpal and other revenue authorities, the respondents proceeded to cancel the patta. Accordingly, such an action cannot be sustained which in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, both the impugned orders being illegal and arbitrary are quashed.

8. The writ petition is allowed. The matter stands remanded to the Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

9. Before parting in the case, the facts which have emanated from the said case and especially from the short counter affidavit filed by the State disclose sorry state of affair and are on the face of it alarming. As per the respondents, the land which was declared and showed in the record as Ganga River, Forest, ponds and sand land was subject matter of allotment in the present case. I fail to fathom as to how such land at the first instance could have been allotted for the purpose of agriculture to the petitioner. Merely cancellation of patta is not sufficient, the authorities should have gone to the bottom of the matter and conducted an inquiry and taken strict action against the persons responsible for allotment of the land of the Gaon Sabha specially the land which falls under Category 6. Undoubtedly, in case such lands were recorded as forest lands, river ganga should at the first instance never have been subject matter of allotment for grant of patta. It is the matter of great surprise as to how the authorities proceeded to grant patta even to a land recorded as river ganga.

10. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to direct the Principle Secretary, Revenue to conduct the inquiry into the matter and peruse the entire record pertaining to the grant of patta. In case the allegations are correct as per the versions of the State itself that the land is fall in Category 6 and no Bhumidari lands could vest in any person as per the injunction granted under Section 132 of the U.p[.Z.A. and L.R. Act, he should proceed to take strict action against the highest persons responsible for approving such an action disbursing the lands of the State illegally.

11. Accordingly, let an inquiry be done and appropriate disciplinary action taken against the persons irrespective of the facts that the officials/officer which may have superannuated in the mean while.

12. Let an inquiry be conducted in accordance with law and concluded within next three months and a report be submitted to this Court through the Senior Registrar, High Court Lucknow. The Senior Registrar is directed to place the record of this Court before the appropriate Court along with the report submitted by the Principle Secretary, Revenue for further orders.

13. It is further made clear that quashing of the impugned order will not result in vesting of the disputed property in favour of the petitioner which could certainly subject to the final orders passed in the remand proceedings. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.] RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

26.06.2006, Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi recorded the fact that a perusal of the aforesaid report clearly indicates that the land on which the patta has been given to the petitioner belongs to Category 6 land on which Ganga river, sand and forest land and Gaon Sabha is recorded which is for public purposes and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors reported in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3215 and cancelled the said patta directing the authority to record the name of Gaon Sabha in place of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue duly considered and appreciated the contentions of the petitioner that the proceedings are conducted in gross violation of principle of nature justice inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancellation of the patta but instated of recording any finding in this regard revisional authority only considered the facts mentioned in the order of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi and stated that no rights would vest in the aforesaid land which falls under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and rejected the revision.

4. In the present writ petition while assailing both the aforesaid orders, counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a patta was granted in favour of the petitioner, then the same could have been cancelled only in accordance with law. He submits that the provisions pertaining to cancellation of patta have been duly provided for under Section 198(4),(5) and (6) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which is as follows:- "4. The Collector 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 cause 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. (6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued- (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of seven years from the said date; and (b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, which ever be later."

5. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the statute itself provides for a due procedure for cancellation of the allotment where it would be necessary to issue a show cause notice and further Clause-6 provides time period within which such cancellation can be made.

6. I find that the petitioner has taken this ground in the revision which is duly mentioned in the impugned order itself but surprisingly, no finding has been returned by the Board of Revenue clearly indicating that they have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In case the order was passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, it was necessary to have considered the said ground and in case it was found to be correct quash the order against which the revision was filed.

7. A perusal of the impugned orders itself indicate that neither was any notice issued nor any opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner before cancellation of the patta and merely on receipt of an ex parte report by the Lekhpal and other revenue authorities, the respondents proceeded to cancel the patta. Accordingly, such an action cannot be sustained which in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, both the impugned orders being illegal and arbitrary are quashed.

8. The writ petition is allowed. The matter stands remanded to the Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

9. Before parting in the case, the facts which have emanated from the said case and especially from the short counter affidavit filed by the State disclose sorry state of affair and are on the face of it alarming. As per the respondents, the land which was declared and showed in the record as Ganga River, Forest, ponds and sand land was subject matter of allotment in the present case. I fail to fathom as to how such land at the first instance could have been allotted for the purpose of agriculture to the petitioner. Merely cancellation of patta is not sufficient, the authorities should have gone to the bottom of the matter and conducted an inquiry and taken strict action against the persons responsible for allotment of the land of the Gaon Sabha specially the land which falls under Category 6. Undoubtedly, in case such lands were recorded as forest lands, river ganga should at the first instance never have been subject matter of allotment for grant of patta. It is the matter of great surprise as to how the authorities proceeded to grant patta even to a land recorded as river ganga.

10. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to direct the Principle Secretary, Revenue to conduct the inquiry into the matter and peruse the entire record pertaining to the grant of patta. In case the allegations are correct as per the versions of the State itself that the land is fall in Category 6 and no Bhumidari lands could vest in any person as per the injunction granted under Section 132 of the U.p[.Z.A. and L.R. Act, he should proceed to take strict action against the highest persons responsible for approving such an action disbursing the lands of the State illegally.

11. Accordingly, let an inquiry be done and appropriate disciplinary action taken against the persons irrespective of the facts that the officials/officer which may have superannuated in the mean while.

12. Let an inquiry be conducted in accordance with law and concluded within next three months and a report be submitted to this Court through the Senior Registrar, High Court Lucknow. The Senior Registrar is directed to place the record of this Court before the appropriate Court along with the report submitted by the Principle Secretary, Revenue for further orders.

13. It is further made clear that quashing of the impugned order will not result in vesting of the disputed property in favour of the petitioner which could certainly subject to the final orders passed in the remand proceedings. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.] RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench