High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4, Shri Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no. 6 to 9.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land Management Committee has passed resolution in the year 2002 for patta bearing Gata No. 2431, Rakba 0.190 hectare in favour of Sheeetal and Gyanwati. It was submitted that the said allotment was in gross violation of the provision contained in U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. On the other hand because the claim of the petitioner that he has better circumstanced for have been given allotment of patta in his favour whether the respondents on the other hand has not adequately considered the case of the petitioner and granted patta in favour of Sheetal and Ghyanwati. The application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was considered by the Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow, he considered allegations levelled by the petitioner that Gata No. 2431 was not vacant and could not have been subject matter of allotment of Patta. He further considered allegations regarding the eligibility predecessor of private respondents and by means of the order dated 29.4.2013 the complaint of the petitioner was allowed and the allotment made was cancelled and the land was directed to be handed over to the Gaon Sabha.

3. The private respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2013 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Lucknow Mandal, who after considering the entire matter was of the view that the order dated 29.4.2013 has been passed in haste without perusing the record and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for determination afresh.

4. In the remand proceedings the A.D.M., Administration, Lucknow again reconsidered all the issues by perusing the record and duly considered all the allegations levelled by the petitioner on merit and after considering the entire matter in detailed, rejected all the allegations levelled by the petitioner and also found that there was no infirmity in the allotment of pattas in favour of predecessor interest of the private respondents. He relied upon a report submitted by the Tehsildar on 6.5.2009 to return of finding that prior to allotment of the land was in possession of the petitioner. He did not agree with the contention of the petitioner that he is in a possession of disputed land. He further inquired into the aspect of eligibility of the allottees for giving allotment and found that they are eligible and accordingly rejected the complaint as well as the previous order dated 29.4.2013.

5. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2024, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow. The Commissioner, Lucknow also revisited the ground taken by the petitioner and assailing the said allotment of patta and rejected the revision and upheld the order dated 31.12.2024. In the present proceedings the petitioner has re- stated all the issues, which have been raised before the courts below.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand have supported the impugned order and submitted that full opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner by all the authorities and it is only after due discussion and deliberation all the issues raised by the petitioner, the objection filed by the petitioner against the allotment has been rejected and accordingly prays for disposal of the petition.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the record. In the present case the petitioner was not allotted any patta but he was aggrieved with the allotment of patta in favour of predecessor of interest of the private respondents. His grievance accordingly was two folds; first was regarding for nongrant of patta and secondly patta granted to the private respondents. On both the issues the authority below found that the respondents were better suited for grant of patta and no infirmity could be found which may after following proper procedure prescribed and after due publication and informing all the villagers of the said process. From the record I find that the entire original record has been considered by the authority concerned and thereafter the objections raised by the petitioner have been considered and rejected. The finding was clearly returned that 199 persons had participated in the process of allotment, out of which, 130 persons from the Scheduled Castes and 67 persons from the other Backward Class and 02 from the other General Category, the administration has made spot inspection after duly intimating to all the villagers prior to making all means and subsequently in the open meeting of Gaon Sabha the eligibility list was drawn out and the names of all the persons were read out in the said meeting. Subsequently the errors in the said list were also rectified and names of the persons who were dead and even some persons, who have in inadvertently been left out were included and a revised list was passed by the Gaon Sabha in the open meeting. Even subsequently when the list was amended procedure was followed and all the villagers were duly informed and accordingly it was held that there was no infirmity in the procedure of allotment and complaint was found baseless and is rejected. No further material has been adduced by the petitioner which indicate that the finding recorded by the Authorities Below are perverse and requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order by this Court. impugned necessitating interference Accordingly the petition lacks of any merit and is hereby dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4, Shri Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no. 6 to 9.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land Management Committee has passed resolution in the year 2002 for patta bearing Gata No. 2431, Rakba 0.190 hectare in favour of Sheeetal and Gyanwati. It was submitted that the said allotment was in gross violation of the provision contained in U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. On the other hand because the claim of the petitioner that he has better circumstanced for have been given allotment of patta in his favour whether the respondents on the other hand has not adequately considered the case of the petitioner and granted patta in favour of Sheetal and Ghyanwati. The application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was considered by the Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow, he considered allegations levelled by the petitioner that Gata No. 2431 was not vacant and could not have been subject matter of allotment of Patta. He further considered allegations regarding the eligibility predecessor of private respondents and by means of the order dated 29.4.2013 the complaint of the petitioner was allowed and the allotment made was cancelled and the land was directed to be handed over to the Gaon Sabha.

3. The private respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2013 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Lucknow Mandal, who after considering the entire matter was of the view that the order dated 29.4.2013 has been passed in haste without perusing the record and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for determination afresh.

4. In the remand proceedings the A.D.M., Administration, Lucknow again reconsidered all the issues by perusing the record and duly considered all the allegations levelled by the petitioner on merit and after considering the entire matter in detailed, rejected all the allegations levelled by the petitioner and also found that there was no infirmity in the allotment of pattas in favour of predecessor interest of the private respondents. He relied upon a report submitted by the Tehsildar on 6.5.2009 to return of finding that prior to allotment of the land was in possession of the petitioner. He did not agree with the contention of the petitioner that he is in a possession of disputed land. He further inquired into the aspect of eligibility of the allottees for giving allotment and found that they are eligible and accordingly rejected the complaint as well as the previous order dated 29.4.2013.

5. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2024, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow. The Commissioner, Lucknow also revisited the ground taken by the petitioner and assailing the said allotment of patta and rejected the revision and upheld the order dated 31.12.2024. In the present proceedings the petitioner has re- stated all the issues, which have been raised before the courts below.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand have supported the impugned order and submitted that full opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner by all the authorities and it is only after due discussion and deliberation all the issues raised by the petitioner, the objection filed by the petitioner against the allotment has been rejected and accordingly prays for disposal of the petition.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the record. In the present case the petitioner was not allotted any patta but he was aggrieved with the allotment of patta in favour of predecessor of interest of the private respondents. His grievance accordingly was two folds; first was regarding for nongrant of patta and secondly patta granted to the private respondents. On both the issues the authority below found that the respondents were better suited for grant of patta and no infirmity could be found which may after following proper procedure prescribed and after due publication and informing all the villagers of the said process. From the record I find that the entire original record has been considered by the authority concerned and thereafter the objections raised by the petitioner have been considered and rejected. The finding was clearly returned that 199 persons had participated in the process of allotment, out of which, 130 persons from the Scheduled Castes and 67 persons from the other Backward Class and 02 from the other General Category, the administration has made spot inspection after duly intimating to all the villagers prior to making all means and subsequently in the open meeting of Gaon Sabha the eligibility list was drawn out and the names of all the persons were read out in the said meeting. Subsequently the errors in the said list were also rectified and names of the persons who were dead and even some persons, who have in inadvertently been left out were included and a revised list was passed by the Gaon Sabha in the open meeting. Even subsequently when the list was amended procedure was followed and all the villagers were duly informed and accordingly it was held that there was no infirmity in the procedure of allotment and complaint was found baseless and is rejected. No further material has been adduced by the petitioner which indicate that the finding recorded by the Authorities Below are perverse and requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order by this Court. impugned necessitating interference Accordingly the petition lacks of any merit and is hereby dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench