Sundar Lal Z.A. Act vs Additional Commissioneradministration And

1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Nand Kishore, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of the revisional court passed by the Additional Commissioner on

30.12.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, being landless and poor person, on the basis of possession over the land in dispute, moved an application under Section 229-B read with Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Tehsildar found the possession of the petitioner and passed an order in his favour on

31.12.2002, against which the respondent No.2 filed revision, contending that the petitioner is not a landless person, nor holding of the petitioner is less than 2 acres, inasmuch as he stated that respondent No.2 has also moved an application under Section 122-F and his application was not taken into consideration. The revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 31.12.2002, against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after passing of the order dated 31.12.2002, the respondent No.2 moved an application on the basis of possession over the land in dispute on 25.9.2002, 3.12.2002, 2 WRIC No. 1000622 of 2005

27.9.2002, 26.12.2002 and 8.1.2003. Upon enquiry, the application filed by the revisionist was found to be filed on 7.1.2003, which is addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on which, report was called for and on the basis of report, it was found that on the basis of possession and exercise of power under Section 122-B-(4F), Sundar Lal was found to be in possession.

5. The Tehsildar has recorded that the Salik Ram is running a flour mill and he is not an agriculturist and is a wealth holding person and the application filed by the revisionist was rejected. The finding has returned that the possession of Sundar Lal over the land was not found to be undisputed. It has further been recorded that under Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, if the land is below two acres and the person is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and is under possession before the cut off date, he is entitled to get benefit under the aforesaid section. Further finding has been recorded that on the basis of report of the Gram Pradhan and villagers, possession of Salik Ram was not proved. It has been recorded by the revisional court that the certificate issued to the petitioner, the Gram Pradhan has stated that he is not aware about the signature and seal on the certificate, therefore, the finding has returned that on the land in dispute, the possession of the petitioner is not found to be proved and came to the conclusion that the claim setup by the opposite party (petitioner) is devoid of merit and the order dated

31.12.2002 was cancelled.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the respondent No.2 has moved an application prior to the cut off date and prior to the decision of the Tehsildar dated 31.12.2002 and he is a landless person, belonging to the scheduled caste category, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit under Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Further submission is that the possession of the petitioner was not found proved, therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit on the basis of the possession over the land in dispute.

7. Learned Standing Counsel supported the claim setup by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3 WRIC No. 1000622 of 2005

8. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.

9. There is no specific pleading of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the revisional court is based on perverse finding. On perusal of the order passed by the revisional court, the Court itself found that the possession of the petitioner, on wholly erroneous grounds, was found to be not proved. The Tehsildar, after perusal of records came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get benefit under Section 122- B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and was provided the said benefit.

10. The reasons assigned in the impugned revisional order has no valid justification in regard to the claim setup by the petitioner. The petitioner is a landless person, having land below two acres and is fully entitled to get benefit under Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No cogent reasons have been recorded by the revisional court in coming to the conclusion that the claim setup by the petitioner on the basis of possession, is not found undisputed. It is well settled that reasons are the heartbeat of conclusion and in absence thereof, such order becomes vulnerable, therefore, the order dated 30.12.2004 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

11. On perusal of the revisional order, it is found that the reasons recorded by the Tehsildar in passing the order dated 31.12.2002 have not been set aside and the order passed by the revisional court without recording finding in regard to the order passed by the Tehsildar, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

12. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside, therefore, the order dated 30.12.2004 is hereby set aside.

13. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner (respondent No.1) to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration that in case the application of the respondent No.2 has been filed before the cut off date, he will be provided opportunity of hearing prior to passing of 4 WRIC No. 1000622 of 2005 the order. However, it is made clear that the order shall be passed after hearing the parties.

14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. November 25, 2025 Gautam (Irshad Ali,J.) GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Nand Kishore, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of the revisional court passed by the Additional Commissioner on

30.12.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, being landless and poor person, on the basis of possession over the land in dispute, moved an application under Section 229-B read with Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Tehsildar found the possession of the petitioner and passed an order in his favour on

31.12.2002, against which the respondent No.2 filed revision, contending that the petitioner is not a landless person, nor holding of the petitioner is less than 2 acres, inasmuch as he stated that respondent No.2 has also moved an application under Section 122-F and his application was not taken into consideration. The revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 31.12.2002, against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after passing of the order dated 31.12.2002, the respondent No.2 moved an application on the basis of possession over the land in dispute on 25.9.2002, 3.12.2002, 2 WRIC No. 1000622 of 2005

27.9.2002, 26.12.2002 and 8.1.2003. Upon enquiry, the application filed by the revisionist was found to be filed on 7.1.2003, which is addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on which, report was called for and on the basis of report, it was found that on the basis of possession and exercise of power under Section 122-B-(4F), Sundar Lal was found to be in possession.

5. The Tehsildar has recorded that the Salik Ram is running a flour mill and he is not an agriculturist and is a wealth holding person and the application filed by the revisionist was rejected. The finding has returned that the possession of Sundar Lal over the land was not found to be undisputed. It has further been recorded that under Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, if the land is below two acres and the person is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and is under possession before the cut off date, he is entitled to get benefit under the aforesaid section. Further finding has been recorded that on the basis of report of the Gram Pradhan and villagers, possession of Salik Ram was not proved. It has been recorded by the revisional court that the certificate issued to the petitioner, the Gram Pradhan has stated that he is not aware about the signature and seal on the certificate, therefore, the finding has returned that on the land in dispute, the possession of the petitioner is not found to be proved and came to the conclusion that the claim setup by the opposite party (petitioner) is devoid of merit and the order dated

31.12.2002 was cancelled.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the respondent No.2 has moved an application prior to the cut off date and prior to the decision of the Tehsildar dated 31.12.2002 and he is a landless person, belonging to the scheduled caste category, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit under Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Further submission is that the possession of the petitioner was not found proved, therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit on the basis of the possession over the land in dispute.

7. Learned Standing Counsel supported the claim setup by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3 WRIC No. 1000622 of 2005

8. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.

9. There is no specific pleading of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the revisional court is based on perverse finding. On perusal of the order passed by the revisional court, the Court itself found that the possession of the petitioner, on wholly erroneous grounds, was found to be not proved. The Tehsildar, after perusal of records came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get benefit under Section 122- B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and was provided the said benefit.

10. The reasons assigned in the impugned revisional order has no valid justification in regard to the claim setup by the petitioner. The petitioner is a landless person, having land below two acres and is fully entitled to get benefit under Section 122-B-(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No cogent reasons have been recorded by the revisional court in coming to the conclusion that the claim setup by the petitioner on the basis of possession, is not found undisputed. It is well settled that reasons are the heartbeat of conclusion and in absence thereof, such order becomes vulnerable, therefore, the order dated 30.12.2004 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

11. On perusal of the revisional order, it is found that the reasons recorded by the Tehsildar in passing the order dated 31.12.2002 have not been set aside and the order passed by the revisional court without recording finding in regard to the order passed by the Tehsildar, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

12. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside, therefore, the order dated 30.12.2004 is hereby set aside.

13. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner (respondent No.1) to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration that in case the application of the respondent No.2 has been filed before the cut off date, he will be provided opportunity of hearing prior to passing of 4 WRIC No. 1000622 of 2005 the order. However, it is made clear that the order shall be passed after hearing the parties.

14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. November 25, 2025 Gautam (Irshad Ali,J.) GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench