High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, same is taken on record. Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on the behalf of respondent no. 9 - Gaon Sabha. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Controversy in the present case pertains to rejection of application of the petitioner for cancellation of Patta issued in favour of private respondents.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 06.06.2009, lease was granted in favour of private respondents over Gata No. 854, situated at Village - Gauhani, Pargana - Chanda, Tehsil - Lambhua, District - Sultanpur. It is stated that the patta granted in favour of private respondents was illegal and arbitrary and also that the Patta was granted of the land on which constructed house existed which belonged to the petitioner and it is also stated that certain trees grown by his ancestors also existed on the said land.

4. While considering the application of the petitioner for cancellation of lease, notices were issued to the private respondents and also spot inspection report was sought from the Tehsil authorities. The Spot Inspection Report was submitted on 14.03.2011, wherein it was stated that allotment of residential patta in favour of private respondents has been made after following due process prescribed and the Land Management Committee had duly published and included in its agenda and open sitting of the Gaon Sabha, lease was prepared.

5. It has been further recorded in the inspection report that the lease was duly approved and further the land was demarcated and private respondents were given physical possession on the land on which the Patta was granted. It is stated that after grant of patta the private respondents have constructed their house and are living and habiting in the said premises. It was further stated that the private respondents are land less labourers and belong to Scheduled Caste and are below powerty line and accordingly taking into account all the relevant factors, Patta was granted in their favor.

6. With regard to petitioner it was found that he is bhoomidhar and have 5.26 hectares of land in Village - Rasula, Beldadi, Bankatwa and Gauhani and even in the village in question he owns 15 biswa of residential land. It stated that petitioner owns a truck having ten wheels. It was further recorded that in the south of the property which was allotted in favour of private respondents one khaprail measuring 13-10 feet existed which has not been touched and his separate from the land allotted in favour of private respondents.

7. It was further recorded that the petitioner has no right or title over the land which has been allotted to the private respondents, as the same is recorded as "Banjar" in the revenue records and accordingly, finding was recorded that no right of the petitioner was involved in the said dispute and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Faizabad Division, District - Sultanpur after considering the entire facts of the case including objections raised by the petitioner, rejected his complaint by means of order dated 06.10.2018.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 06.10.2018, preferred revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Sultanpur.

9. The revisional authority also considered the entire facts and also relied upon the spot inspection report submitted by the Tehsildar and found that no ground has been made out by the petitioner for cancelling the Patta in dispute and accordingly rejected the revision by means of order dated 28.04.2025.

10. Assailing both the orders dated 06.10.2018 and 28.04.2025, present writ petition has been filed. In the present writ petition the petitioner has reiterated the arguments stated before the authorities below. The petitioner has clearly alleged that one of the respondents namely Bhagwati Deen is the brother of the father-in-law of the Gran Pradhan and consequently disentitled for being allotted the Patta.

11. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 28(C) of the Panchayati Raj Act and has submitted that no allotment of Patta can be made in favour of family members of the Gram Pradhan.

12. For ready reference Section 28(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is quoted herein below :- "28-C. Members and officers not to acquire interest in contracts, etc., with Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.- (1) No member or office-bearer of [Gram Panchayat] or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale, exchange, contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the Samiti concerned : Provided that a person shall not be deemed to acquire or attempt to acquire or continue to have or stipulate for or agree to receive any share or interest in any contract or employment by reason only of his- (a) having acquired any interest before he became a member or office-bearer; (b) having a share in a joint stock company which makes the contract; and (c) having a share or interest in the occasional sale through the Samiti concerned of an article in which he regularly trades up to a value not exceeding Rs.50 in any one year. (2) No Court or other authority shall enforce at the instance of any person a claim based upon a transaction in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1)."

13. From the aforesaid provision we do not find any injunction for allotment of Patta in favour of family members of the Gram Pradhan while injunction has been laid down in Section 28(C) only to the members of the officers themselves and does not extend to the members of family. Accordingly, this Court do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.

14. Apart from the above, perusal of both the impugned orders would indicate that clear finding has been recorded with regard to the fact that allotment of Patta was in accordance with law as allotment was made in favour of persons who are living below powerty line and finding has been recorded that all the allotees are land less labourers and they are entitled to be allotted residential Pattas.

15. This Court further finds that the petitioner does not have any right or title over the land in question of which allotment has been made. Only argument of the petitioner before this Court is that the said land forms part of "Sahan". This Court finds that the report of Lekhpal is categorical in this regard which states that "Khaprail" of the petitioner is to the south of the land which has been allotted in favour of private respondents and no "Sahan" of the petitioner exists on the disputed land.

16. In view of above, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders.

17. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, same is taken on record. Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on the behalf of respondent no. 9 - Gaon Sabha. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Controversy in the present case pertains to rejection of application of the petitioner for cancellation of Patta issued in favour of private respondents.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 06.06.2009, lease was granted in favour of private respondents over Gata No. 854, situated at Village - Gauhani, Pargana - Chanda, Tehsil - Lambhua, District - Sultanpur. It is stated that the patta granted in favour of private respondents was illegal and arbitrary and also that the Patta was granted of the land on which constructed house existed which belonged to the petitioner and it is also stated that certain trees grown by his ancestors also existed on the said land.

4. While considering the application of the petitioner for cancellation of lease, notices were issued to the private respondents and also spot inspection report was sought from the Tehsil authorities. The Spot Inspection Report was submitted on 14.03.2011, wherein it was stated that allotment of residential patta in favour of private respondents has been made after following due process prescribed and the Land Management Committee had duly published and included in its agenda and open sitting of the Gaon Sabha, lease was prepared.

5. It has been further recorded in the inspection report that the lease was duly approved and further the land was demarcated and private respondents were given physical possession on the land on which the Patta was granted. It is stated that after grant of patta the private respondents have constructed their house and are living and habiting in the said premises. It was further stated that the private respondents are land less labourers and belong to Scheduled Caste and are below powerty line and accordingly taking into account all the relevant factors, Patta was granted in their favor.

6. With regard to petitioner it was found that he is bhoomidhar and have 5.26 hectares of land in Village - Rasula, Beldadi, Bankatwa and Gauhani and even in the village in question he owns 15 biswa of residential land. It stated that petitioner owns a truck having ten wheels. It was further recorded that in the south of the property which was allotted in favour of private respondents one khaprail measuring 13-10 feet existed which has not been touched and his separate from the land allotted in favour of private respondents.

7. It was further recorded that the petitioner has no right or title over the land which has been allotted to the private respondents, as the same is recorded as "Banjar" in the revenue records and accordingly, finding was recorded that no right of the petitioner was involved in the said dispute and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Faizabad Division, District - Sultanpur after considering the entire facts of the case including objections raised by the petitioner, rejected his complaint by means of order dated 06.10.2018.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 06.10.2018, preferred revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Sultanpur.

9. The revisional authority also considered the entire facts and also relied upon the spot inspection report submitted by the Tehsildar and found that no ground has been made out by the petitioner for cancelling the Patta in dispute and accordingly rejected the revision by means of order dated 28.04.2025.

10. Assailing both the orders dated 06.10.2018 and 28.04.2025, present writ petition has been filed. In the present writ petition the petitioner has reiterated the arguments stated before the authorities below. The petitioner has clearly alleged that one of the respondents namely Bhagwati Deen is the brother of the father-in-law of the Gran Pradhan and consequently disentitled for being allotted the Patta.

11. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 28(C) of the Panchayati Raj Act and has submitted that no allotment of Patta can be made in favour of family members of the Gram Pradhan.

12. For ready reference Section 28(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is quoted herein below :- "28-C. Members and officers not to acquire interest in contracts, etc., with Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.- (1) No member or office-bearer of [Gram Panchayat] or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale, exchange, contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the Samiti concerned : Provided that a person shall not be deemed to acquire or attempt to acquire or continue to have or stipulate for or agree to receive any share or interest in any contract or employment by reason only of his- (a) having acquired any interest before he became a member or office-bearer; (b) having a share in a joint stock company which makes the contract; and (c) having a share or interest in the occasional sale through the Samiti concerned of an article in which he regularly trades up to a value not exceeding Rs.50 in any one year. (2) No Court or other authority shall enforce at the instance of any person a claim based upon a transaction in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1)."

13. From the aforesaid provision we do not find any injunction for allotment of Patta in favour of family members of the Gram Pradhan while injunction has been laid down in Section 28(C) only to the members of the officers themselves and does not extend to the members of family. Accordingly, this Court do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.

14. Apart from the above, perusal of both the impugned orders would indicate that clear finding has been recorded with regard to the fact that allotment of Patta was in accordance with law as allotment was made in favour of persons who are living below powerty line and finding has been recorded that all the allotees are land less labourers and they are entitled to be allotted residential Pattas.

15. This Court further finds that the petitioner does not have any right or title over the land in question of which allotment has been made. Only argument of the petitioner before this Court is that the said land forms part of "Sahan". This Court finds that the report of Lekhpal is categorical in this regard which states that "Khaprail" of the petitioner is to the south of the land which has been allotted in favour of private respondents and no "Sahan" of the petitioner exists on the disputed land.

16. In view of above, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders.

17. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench