Ram Kumar vs The State Of U.P. Trhrough Collector Sultanpur

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Collector has passed the order under U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952. Under Section 15-A thereof, it has been provided that the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the report of the committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14, whether before or after the commencement of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, inquire into such grant, and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or fraud, he may cancel the grant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed by the Additional Collector for which he was not authorized. Only the Collector can pass the order under the said Act, therefore, the order is wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that the order was passed by the Additional Collector in an ex parte proceeding without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Next submission is that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration that the order is ex parte in nature and has been passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction to pass the order.

7. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that grant was given in favour of father of the petitioner in the year 1959 and in the consolidation proceeding, the name of petitioner's father was mutated and final publication under Section 52 was made and akar patra-45 was prepared wherein the name of the petitioners' father was present. He further submitted that after a long spell of time, proceeding was initiated against the father of the petitioner and vide order dated 5.1.1985, the lease granted was cancelled after 26 years and incorporated after 37 years. In 3 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 support of the submission advanced, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Prabhu Vs. Additional Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar and others [(2008) 2 ALJ (NOC) 256(ALL.)]. Relevant paragraphs 2 to 7 are being quoted below:- "2. The dispute in the instant case relates to plot No. 899. Petitioner claimed that the said plot was allotted by Gaon Sabha to him on

20.5.1964. However, for mutation of his name in the revenue records over the said plot on the basis of said patta, Petitioner filed application in 1989, i.e., after 25 years of alleged allotment. His application was allowed by Tehsildar and his name was mutated. Thereafter, in 1991, Respondent No. 4, Mata Saran instituted Case No. 444/326/222 of 1991 by filing application against Petitioner before Additional Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar, u/s 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, for cancellation of patta. Additional Collector through the order dated 24.9.1998 allowed the application and cancelled the patta. Against the said order Petitioner filed Revision No. 57 of 1998. Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur dismissed the revision on 23.3.2001. Through this writ petition order of the Additional Collector dated 24.9.1998 has been challenged. It is strange that no prayer for setting aside order of revisional court dated

23.3.2001 has been made.

3. The case of Respondent No. 4 Mata Saran who filed application for cancellation of patta was that over the plot in dispute his house Verandah, courtyard etc. was situate and apart from him other persons of the village were also having their houses. It was also stated that Petitioner''s house was also situate over portion of plot in dispute.

4. Both the courts below doubted the factum of grant of patta in favour of the Petitioner. It was further held that patta was also illegal. They also observed that meanwhile consolidation had intervened and during consolidation no objection was filed by the Petitioner. They also took into consideration the undue delay of 25 years on the part of the petitioner to apply for mutation.

5. Under Section 198 (4) of the Act application for cancellation of patta may be filed. However, if a case is taken that patta was in fact never 4 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 granted then such question cannot be decided in proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act. For cancellation of patta, proceedings after 25 years may not be maintainable. However, the Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, , has held that jurisdiction to grant patta may be seen in consolidation proceedings or regular suit also and proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act are not the only remedy for cancellation of patta. The fact as to whether patta was granted or not can be adjudged only in regular suit.

6. If Respondent No. 4 or any other person asserts that he has got his abadi/house over part of land in dispute then the said fact has to be decided by some court.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to Respondent No. 4 and/or any other person who may be having his abadi/ house over any portion of plot No. 899 to file regular suit for declaration and injunction etc. If such a suit is filed then the same shall be decided without being influenced by mutation order passed by the Tehsildar or orders dated 24.9.1998 and 23.3.2001, passed by Additional Collector and Commissioner on the application of Respondent No. 4. In the suit factum as well as validity of patta shall be adjudged, if such pleas are raised. It is needless to add that alongwith suit application for temporary injunction may also be filed."

8. Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in pursuance to the notice, the father of the petitioner appeared in the matter and filed his Vakalatnama, but thereafter, he did not appear, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice.

9. In rebuttal, in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the writ petition, it has specifically been stated that in pursuance to the notice, the father of the petitioner did not appear in the matter nor has filed Vakalatnama on his behalf and no counter affidavit has been filed, replying to the statement of fact made in the aforesaid paragraphs, therefore, it is admitted that the father of the petitioner did not appear nor has filed Vakalatnama in the matter, therefore, the order is ex parte and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the father of the petitioner or to the petitioner. 5 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006

10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits Bhoodan Yagna Samiti is not party to the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

11. After having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law report cited by petitioner's counsel.

12. On perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector, it is evident that the proceeding was initiated under Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952/ Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the order it has been recorded that the notice was served upon the father of the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, he filed in power in the matter, therefore, he was aware about the proceeding of cancellation of lease granted in his favour.

13. In view of the fact narrated in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25, the above finding recorded is wholly perverse, incorrect and not acceptable in the eyes of law. Merely relying on the statement of D.G.C.(Civil), the finding has returned on the basis of incorrect statement of fact, in fact, the father of the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing in passing the impugned order dated 5.1.1985, therefore, he was having no knowledge of the aforesaid order. It only came in the knowledge of the petitioner when his father died in the year 1998 and he initiated mutation proceeding for mutation of his name on the place of his father. Then, he was informed that lease granted to father of the petitioner has been cancelled in the year 1985 and proceeding was initiated to delete the name of father of the petitioner from the revenue records. The Additional Collector initiated proceeding under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 and has proceeded to pass the order under the said proceeding.

14. The finding of the revisional court is otherwise that the order passed by the Additional Collector is just and valid and he has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, being time barred as well as the finding has returned that U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and thereafter, proceeded to pass the order, dismissed the revision without considering the fact that the order is ex 6 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 parte in nature and order has been passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction in the matter.

15. The order passed by the respondent No.2 is wholly without jurisdiction in view of provision contained under Section 15 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, wherein the Collector is empowered to pass the order under the aforesaid Act and due to non consideration of aforesaid aspect of the matter, the revisional court has committed manifest error of law in passing the order.

16. The argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel that the order is not in violation of principles of natural justice in view of the fact that notice was issued to the father of the petitioner who has filed his power in the matter. In view of the fact narrated in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the writ petition, this statement of fact is devoid of merit, in fact the recital made in the aforesaid paragraphs has not been denied by filing counter affidavit, therefore, the objection of learned Standing Counsel is not acceptable in the eyes of law. His next submission that Bhoodan Yagna Committee has not been made party, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties, in this regard, it is held that finding has returned in the order of the revisional court that the land does not relate under U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Yojna and respondent No.2 (Additional Collector) and Additional Commissioner, who have passed the impugned orders have been made party to the writ petition, therefore, necessary parties have been impleaded in the array of parties of the respondents, thus, this argument of the learned Standing Counsel is also rejected in view of the aforesaid reasons.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 5.1.1985, 17.8.2001 and 29.6.2006 are hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. However, District Collector is directed to hear the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

19. No order as to costs. 7 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 (Irshad Ali,J.) December 10, 2025 Gautam GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Collector has passed the order under U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952. Under Section 15-A thereof, it has been provided that the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the report of the committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14, whether before or after the commencement of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, inquire into such grant, and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or fraud, he may cancel the grant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed by the Additional Collector for which he was not authorized. Only the Collector can pass the order under the said Act, therefore, the order is wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that the order was passed by the Additional Collector in an ex parte proceeding without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Next submission is that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration that the order is ex parte in nature and has been passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction to pass the order.

7. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that grant was given in favour of father of the petitioner in the year 1959 and in the consolidation proceeding, the name of petitioner's father was mutated and final publication under Section 52 was made and akar patra-45 was prepared wherein the name of the petitioners' father was present. He further submitted that after a long spell of time, proceeding was initiated against the father of the petitioner and vide order dated 5.1.1985, the lease granted was cancelled after 26 years and incorporated after 37 years. In 3 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 support of the submission advanced, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Prabhu Vs. Additional Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar and others [(2008) 2 ALJ (NOC) 256(ALL.)]. Relevant paragraphs 2 to 7 are being quoted below:- "2. The dispute in the instant case relates to plot No. 899. Petitioner claimed that the said plot was allotted by Gaon Sabha to him on

20.5.1964. However, for mutation of his name in the revenue records over the said plot on the basis of said patta, Petitioner filed application in 1989, i.e., after 25 years of alleged allotment. His application was allowed by Tehsildar and his name was mutated. Thereafter, in 1991, Respondent No. 4, Mata Saran instituted Case No. 444/326/222 of 1991 by filing application against Petitioner before Additional Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar, u/s 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, for cancellation of patta. Additional Collector through the order dated 24.9.1998 allowed the application and cancelled the patta. Against the said order Petitioner filed Revision No. 57 of 1998. Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur dismissed the revision on 23.3.2001. Through this writ petition order of the Additional Collector dated 24.9.1998 has been challenged. It is strange that no prayer for setting aside order of revisional court dated

23.3.2001 has been made.

3. The case of Respondent No. 4 Mata Saran who filed application for cancellation of patta was that over the plot in dispute his house Verandah, courtyard etc. was situate and apart from him other persons of the village were also having their houses. It was also stated that Petitioner''s house was also situate over portion of plot in dispute.

4. Both the courts below doubted the factum of grant of patta in favour of the Petitioner. It was further held that patta was also illegal. They also observed that meanwhile consolidation had intervened and during consolidation no objection was filed by the Petitioner. They also took into consideration the undue delay of 25 years on the part of the petitioner to apply for mutation.

5. Under Section 198 (4) of the Act application for cancellation of patta may be filed. However, if a case is taken that patta was in fact never 4 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 granted then such question cannot be decided in proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act. For cancellation of patta, proceedings after 25 years may not be maintainable. However, the Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, , has held that jurisdiction to grant patta may be seen in consolidation proceedings or regular suit also and proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act are not the only remedy for cancellation of patta. The fact as to whether patta was granted or not can be adjudged only in regular suit.

6. If Respondent No. 4 or any other person asserts that he has got his abadi/house over part of land in dispute then the said fact has to be decided by some court.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to Respondent No. 4 and/or any other person who may be having his abadi/ house over any portion of plot No. 899 to file regular suit for declaration and injunction etc. If such a suit is filed then the same shall be decided without being influenced by mutation order passed by the Tehsildar or orders dated 24.9.1998 and 23.3.2001, passed by Additional Collector and Commissioner on the application of Respondent No. 4. In the suit factum as well as validity of patta shall be adjudged, if such pleas are raised. It is needless to add that alongwith suit application for temporary injunction may also be filed."

8. Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in pursuance to the notice, the father of the petitioner appeared in the matter and filed his Vakalatnama, but thereafter, he did not appear, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice.

9. In rebuttal, in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the writ petition, it has specifically been stated that in pursuance to the notice, the father of the petitioner did not appear in the matter nor has filed Vakalatnama on his behalf and no counter affidavit has been filed, replying to the statement of fact made in the aforesaid paragraphs, therefore, it is admitted that the father of the petitioner did not appear nor has filed Vakalatnama in the matter, therefore, the order is ex parte and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the father of the petitioner or to the petitioner. 5 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006

10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits Bhoodan Yagna Samiti is not party to the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

11. After having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law report cited by petitioner's counsel.

12. On perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector, it is evident that the proceeding was initiated under Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952/ Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the order it has been recorded that the notice was served upon the father of the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, he filed in power in the matter, therefore, he was aware about the proceeding of cancellation of lease granted in his favour.

13. In view of the fact narrated in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25, the above finding recorded is wholly perverse, incorrect and not acceptable in the eyes of law. Merely relying on the statement of D.G.C.(Civil), the finding has returned on the basis of incorrect statement of fact, in fact, the father of the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing in passing the impugned order dated 5.1.1985, therefore, he was having no knowledge of the aforesaid order. It only came in the knowledge of the petitioner when his father died in the year 1998 and he initiated mutation proceeding for mutation of his name on the place of his father. Then, he was informed that lease granted to father of the petitioner has been cancelled in the year 1985 and proceeding was initiated to delete the name of father of the petitioner from the revenue records. The Additional Collector initiated proceeding under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 and has proceeded to pass the order under the said proceeding.

14. The finding of the revisional court is otherwise that the order passed by the Additional Collector is just and valid and he has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, being time barred as well as the finding has returned that U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and thereafter, proceeded to pass the order, dismissed the revision without considering the fact that the order is ex 6 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 parte in nature and order has been passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction in the matter.

15. The order passed by the respondent No.2 is wholly without jurisdiction in view of provision contained under Section 15 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, wherein the Collector is empowered to pass the order under the aforesaid Act and due to non consideration of aforesaid aspect of the matter, the revisional court has committed manifest error of law in passing the order.

16. The argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel that the order is not in violation of principles of natural justice in view of the fact that notice was issued to the father of the petitioner who has filed his power in the matter. In view of the fact narrated in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the writ petition, this statement of fact is devoid of merit, in fact the recital made in the aforesaid paragraphs has not been denied by filing counter affidavit, therefore, the objection of learned Standing Counsel is not acceptable in the eyes of law. His next submission that Bhoodan Yagna Committee has not been made party, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties, in this regard, it is held that finding has returned in the order of the revisional court that the land does not relate under U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Yojna and respondent No.2 (Additional Collector) and Additional Commissioner, who have passed the impugned orders have been made party to the writ petition, therefore, necessary parties have been impleaded in the array of parties of the respondents, thus, this argument of the learned Standing Counsel is also rejected in view of the aforesaid reasons.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 5.1.1985, 17.8.2001 and 29.6.2006 are hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. However, District Collector is directed to hear the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

19. No order as to costs. 7 WRIC No. 1004228 of 2006 (Irshad Ali,J.) December 10, 2025 Gautam GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench