State Of U.P. Prin. Sectt., Revenue, Lko. And Others vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

Heard Sri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2.

2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that allotment of housing land was made in favour of the private respondents wherein a proposal of the Land Management Committee dated 15.5.2005 was approved by the District Magistrate on 18.7.2005 of the lands situated at gata No.1089 min. at Village Keshav Nagar Gran Purvi, Pargana Buddh Pyare Tehsil Manak Nagar, District Gonda.

4. It has been submitted that the petitioners are recorded tenure holder of the said gata No.1089 and have been utilizing the land as their sahan land. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners moved application for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the private respondents. In their compliant, on one hand, they asserted their rights as per the provision of Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act stating that the said land is situated at gata No.1090 which is appurtenant land to his holding and on the other hand, have submitted that private respondents are not eligible to be granted housing pattas in as much as they have sufficient land in their names including pucca constructions. Even in the proceedings before Chief Revenue Office, Devi Patan, District Gonda adequate opportunity was given to the petitioners and statements of number of persons were recorded. Similarly, the private respondents had opposed the claim of the petitioners and also evidence of number of villagers was adduced. The Chief Revenue Officer was of the considered view that proper procedure was followed by the Land Management Committee for allotment of patta and they had submitted proposal on 15.5.2005 pursuant to which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, 2 WRIC No. 10700 of 2025 Gonda vide order dated 18.7.2005 had approved the proposal. It was further given wide publicity and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the proceedings. He also returned a finding that all the four allottees who have been made defendants by the petitioner belong to other backward class community and, therefore, they fall within the category of being allotted the housing pattas and in the aforesaid circumstances had rejected the complaint made by the petitioners.

5. With regard to the claim of the petitioners under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act that the said land situated at gata No.1089 was appurtenant to their land, he has recorded that in case the petitioners wanted to claim the said right then it shall be open to them to file a regular suit where declaration can be sought by the petitioners and such a declaration cannot be granted by the Chief Revenue Officer in proceedings for cancellation of patta.

6. It is against the order of Chief Revenue Officer dated 7.4.2025 that the petitioners preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration) under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which revision has been rejected on the ground of maintainability. Against both the said orders the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a judgement of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar and others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, passed in Writ B No.1030 of 2019 where in paragraph 10 following has been observed:- "10. Since the revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the order of Collector under Section 122 C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been held to be maintainable in view of law laid down in Bhoo Devi (supra), as such, the impugned order dated 6.9.2013 passed by respondent no.1 is illegal and cannot be maintained Para-9 of the judgment of Bhoo Devi (supra) is relevant for perusal which is as follows: "9. It may be pertinent here to explain the import of Sub-section (7) of Section 122C and Sub-rule (5) of Rule 115-P of the Rules. The Board of Revenue-in support of its conclusion that the revision in the instant case was not JiwiRtftinable, has relied upon-Sub-section (7) of Section 122-C of the Act which provides that every order passed by the Asstt. Collector under Sub- section (4), shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (6), be final and the provisions of Section 333 and 333-A shall not apply in relation thereto, It is evident that what has been excluded from the purview of Sections 333 and 333- A h an order under Sub-section (4) which empowers the Asst. Collector Incharge of the sub-division to make allotment himself in the event of his being 3 WRIC No. 10700 of 2025 satisfied that the Land Management Committee has failed to discharge its duties or to perform its functions under Sub-section (2) or it is otherwise necessary or expedient so to do. The function under Sub-section (4) is of administrative nature. The Asstt. Collector exercising the powers under Sub-section (4) does not act as a court while the Collector while discharging the function under Section 122-C (6), 198 (4) of the Act or under Rule 115-P of the Rules acts as a court and any final order passed by the Collector under the aforesaid provisions is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Board. Sub-section (4) of Section 122-C has nothing to do with the cancellation of allotment on the same being found be illegal or irregular, nor-has it anything to do with the decision to start with the proceeding for cancellation of allotment. An order of allotment under Sub-section (4) is made by the Asstt. Collector whereas the cancellation is done by the Collector. The fact that the allotment under Sub-section (4) is final "subject to the provisions of Sub-section (6)" as comprehended by Sub- section (7) of Section 122-C unfolds the intendment of the legislature that allotment under Sub-section (4) made by the Asstt. Collector is final subject to the power of the Collector to caneell the same under Sub-section (6) of Section 122-C of the Act or under Rule 115-P (4) of the Rules. The finality attached to an order under Rule 115-P (4) vide Sub-rule (5) cannot restrict the revisional powers of the Board under the Act. What is given under the Act cannot be taken away by the Rules. In Smt. K. Devi V. Board of Revenue U.P.1972 RevDec 228, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court as under: It is true that Rule 115N(3) provides that the decision of the Assistant Collector shall be final. It is well settled that such finality does not restrict the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon higher coupts. In the case of Shah Chaturbhuj v. Mauji Ram (2) a Full Bench of this Court interpreted the phrase "the decision of revenue court shall be final" occurring in Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, as not depriving the higher courts of reyisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Full Bench held that the finality mentioned in the provision only meant chat there was no right of appeal vesting in the litigants against such an order. In our opinion this Full Bench decision equally applies to Section 333. The finality mentioned by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 115-N cannot whittle down the amplitude of the revisional power conferred upon the Board of Revenue by Section 333 of the ZA and LR Act. Accordingly, while it is held that, in the instant case, the revision was not maintainable having been preferred against the decision to commence the enquiry to determine the question pertaining to legality or otherwise of the allotment, any decision that may be taken finally either upholding the allotment or cancelling the same shall be amenable, to the revisional powers of the Board under Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act. The reasoning assigned by the Board 4 WRIC No. 10700 of 2025 is although not correct, its conclusions in the instant case being correct, the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner cannot be lent any countenance in view of the above discussions."

8. Accordingly, we find merit in the submissions of the petitioner that the revision could not have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability contrary to the settled principles. Considering the aforesaid facts the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 6.10.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Additional Commissioner (Administration) for deciding the dispute afresh in accordance with law.

9. Considering that the matter has been pending since 2010 and as we have been informed that due to interference made by various courts the possession of the pattas has not been granted to the allottees, the Additional Commissioner is directed to consider and decide the revision with expedition, say within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified of this order.

10. Needless to say that in case the petitioners do not succeed in the revisional proceedings and in case the possession of the pattas has not been given, the concerned authority shall proceed to grant actual physician possession of the pattas forthwith after the necessary orders/judgment is passed by the revisional court. November 13, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2.

2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that allotment of housing land was made in favour of the private respondents wherein a proposal of the Land Management Committee dated 15.5.2005 was approved by the District Magistrate on 18.7.2005 of the lands situated at gata No.1089 min. at Village Keshav Nagar Gran Purvi, Pargana Buddh Pyare Tehsil Manak Nagar, District Gonda.

4. It has been submitted that the petitioners are recorded tenure holder of the said gata No.1089 and have been utilizing the land as their sahan land. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners moved application for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the private respondents. In their compliant, on one hand, they asserted their rights as per the provision of Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act stating that the said land is situated at gata No.1090 which is appurtenant land to his holding and on the other hand, have submitted that private respondents are not eligible to be granted housing pattas in as much as they have sufficient land in their names including pucca constructions. Even in the proceedings before Chief Revenue Office, Devi Patan, District Gonda adequate opportunity was given to the petitioners and statements of number of persons were recorded. Similarly, the private respondents had opposed the claim of the petitioners and also evidence of number of villagers was adduced. The Chief Revenue Officer was of the considered view that proper procedure was followed by the Land Management Committee for allotment of patta and they had submitted proposal on 15.5.2005 pursuant to which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, 2 WRIC No. 10700 of 2025 Gonda vide order dated 18.7.2005 had approved the proposal. It was further given wide publicity and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the proceedings. He also returned a finding that all the four allottees who have been made defendants by the petitioner belong to other backward class community and, therefore, they fall within the category of being allotted the housing pattas and in the aforesaid circumstances had rejected the complaint made by the petitioners.

5. With regard to the claim of the petitioners under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act that the said land situated at gata No.1089 was appurtenant to their land, he has recorded that in case the petitioners wanted to claim the said right then it shall be open to them to file a regular suit where declaration can be sought by the petitioners and such a declaration cannot be granted by the Chief Revenue Officer in proceedings for cancellation of patta.

6. It is against the order of Chief Revenue Officer dated 7.4.2025 that the petitioners preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration) under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which revision has been rejected on the ground of maintainability. Against both the said orders the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a judgement of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar and others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, passed in Writ B No.1030 of 2019 where in paragraph 10 following has been observed:- "10. Since the revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the order of Collector under Section 122 C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been held to be maintainable in view of law laid down in Bhoo Devi (supra), as such, the impugned order dated 6.9.2013 passed by respondent no.1 is illegal and cannot be maintained Para-9 of the judgment of Bhoo Devi (supra) is relevant for perusal which is as follows: "9. It may be pertinent here to explain the import of Sub-section (7) of Section 122C and Sub-rule (5) of Rule 115-P of the Rules. The Board of Revenue-in support of its conclusion that the revision in the instant case was not JiwiRtftinable, has relied upon-Sub-section (7) of Section 122-C of the Act which provides that every order passed by the Asstt. Collector under Sub- section (4), shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (6), be final and the provisions of Section 333 and 333-A shall not apply in relation thereto, It is evident that what has been excluded from the purview of Sections 333 and 333- A h an order under Sub-section (4) which empowers the Asst. Collector Incharge of the sub-division to make allotment himself in the event of his being 3 WRIC No. 10700 of 2025 satisfied that the Land Management Committee has failed to discharge its duties or to perform its functions under Sub-section (2) or it is otherwise necessary or expedient so to do. The function under Sub-section (4) is of administrative nature. The Asstt. Collector exercising the powers under Sub-section (4) does not act as a court while the Collector while discharging the function under Section 122-C (6), 198 (4) of the Act or under Rule 115-P of the Rules acts as a court and any final order passed by the Collector under the aforesaid provisions is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Board. Sub-section (4) of Section 122-C has nothing to do with the cancellation of allotment on the same being found be illegal or irregular, nor-has it anything to do with the decision to start with the proceeding for cancellation of allotment. An order of allotment under Sub-section (4) is made by the Asstt. Collector whereas the cancellation is done by the Collector. The fact that the allotment under Sub-section (4) is final "subject to the provisions of Sub-section (6)" as comprehended by Sub- section (7) of Section 122-C unfolds the intendment of the legislature that allotment under Sub-section (4) made by the Asstt. Collector is final subject to the power of the Collector to caneell the same under Sub-section (6) of Section 122-C of the Act or under Rule 115-P (4) of the Rules. The finality attached to an order under Rule 115-P (4) vide Sub-rule (5) cannot restrict the revisional powers of the Board under the Act. What is given under the Act cannot be taken away by the Rules. In Smt. K. Devi V. Board of Revenue U.P.1972 RevDec 228, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court as under: It is true that Rule 115N(3) provides that the decision of the Assistant Collector shall be final. It is well settled that such finality does not restrict the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon higher coupts. In the case of Shah Chaturbhuj v. Mauji Ram (2) a Full Bench of this Court interpreted the phrase "the decision of revenue court shall be final" occurring in Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, as not depriving the higher courts of reyisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Full Bench held that the finality mentioned in the provision only meant chat there was no right of appeal vesting in the litigants against such an order. In our opinion this Full Bench decision equally applies to Section 333. The finality mentioned by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 115-N cannot whittle down the amplitude of the revisional power conferred upon the Board of Revenue by Section 333 of the ZA and LR Act. Accordingly, while it is held that, in the instant case, the revision was not maintainable having been preferred against the decision to commence the enquiry to determine the question pertaining to legality or otherwise of the allotment, any decision that may be taken finally either upholding the allotment or cancelling the same shall be amenable, to the revisional powers of the Board under Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act. The reasoning assigned by the Board 4 WRIC No. 10700 of 2025 is although not correct, its conclusions in the instant case being correct, the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner cannot be lent any countenance in view of the above discussions."

8. Accordingly, we find merit in the submissions of the petitioner that the revision could not have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability contrary to the settled principles. Considering the aforesaid facts the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 6.10.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Additional Commissioner (Administration) for deciding the dispute afresh in accordance with law.

9. Considering that the matter has been pending since 2010 and as we have been informed that due to interference made by various courts the possession of the pattas has not been granted to the allottees, the Additional Commissioner is directed to consider and decide the revision with expedition, say within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified of this order.

10. Needless to say that in case the petitioners do not succeed in the revisional proceedings and in case the possession of the pattas has not been given, the concerned authority shall proceed to grant actual physician possession of the pattas forthwith after the necessary orders/judgment is passed by the revisional court. November 13, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench