IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 904 OF 2001(M/S) (Old No. 14306 of 2000) Om Prakash & Ors. …………..Petitioners. Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Others. ……….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Tyagi & Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State. & WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2001(M/S) (Old No. 7009 of 2000) Sukhbir & Ors. …………..Petitioners. Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Others. ……….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Tyagi & Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1473 OF 2008(M/S) Satyapal & Ors. …………..Petitioners. Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Others. 2 ……….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State. & WRIT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2008 (M/S) Raju …………..Petitioner. Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Others. ……….Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 5.1.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Revision No. 42 of 1997-98, whereby the revision filed by the respondent Balbir has been allowed and the order dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that forty one persons including petitioners of Village Balawali Pargana Gobardhanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar were allotted land by the Land Management Committee vide Resolution dated 21.2.1993, which was duly approved by the Sub- District Magistrate on 6.4.1993. Pursuant to the 3 said Resolution, petitioners and other persons, in whose favour, the Patta was granted, were put in possession of the land allotted to them. Since the number of persons for allotment was excessive and the land was not sufficient, therefore, it was decided by the Land Management Committee that out of 247 persons, whose names find place in Z.A. Form No. 57-A, a lottery may be drawn and allotment may be made in favour of 46 persons. Accordingly, petitioners’ and other persons’ name came up and were allotted the land by the Land Management Committee. 3. Contesting Respondents filed an application under Section 198 (4) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 alleging a discrepancy in the allotment procedure. 4. Lekhpal and Bhulekh Nirikshak submitted a report mentioning therein that entire proceedings were in accordance with law and contesting respondents have filed the said application only out of grudge as they were not allotted land. 5. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5.9.1997 allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents and set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and certain other persons. Thereafter, petitioners preferred a revision No. 1/1997-98 before the Commissioner, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Region, 4 Saharanpur vide order dated 30.6.1998. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 / Board of Revenue vide order dated 5.1.2000 set aside the resolution relating to allotment of land in favour of the petitioner and certain other persons. 6. The case of the petitioners is that they are landless agricultural labourer, and there is no person of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the said Village(s). 7. I have gone through the order passed by the revisional Court. While allowing the revision, the revisional Court has recorded a finding that all the lease have been granted in accordance with law and the counsel for Gaon Sabha has failed to show the mistake in the land allotment resolution. A finding was further recorded that the allotment has been made to the persons, who have been approved by the Land Management Committee, therefore, all the lease-holder are deserving candidate for allotment. By recording the said finding, the revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 5.9.1997 and has maintained the resolution dated 21.2.1993 and approval dated 6.4.1993. The lease of only Smt. Brahmi Devi has been cancelled as his son was the member of the Land Allotment Committee and she has not taken prior permission under Section 28 C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It has further been observed that the cancellation of lease after five years is not justified and the persons, who have made the land agriculturable by spending their time, 5 money and by hard working, they cannot be deprived of from their land and the same is against the law. 8. After going through the judgment dated 30.6.1998 as well as finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner in that judgment, I do not find any error in the aforesaid judgment passed by the revisional Court /Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur. 9. So far as the order passed by the Board of Revenue is concerned, the Board of Revenue has no where taken into consideration any evidence in recording the finding that allotment was made to the members of the land Management Committee and also to their kiths and kins. The Board of Revenue has not been justified in holding that permission under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was not taken from the Collector before the land was allotted to the members and their relatives. By recording the said finding, Board of Revenue has set aside the order-dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration). So far as the direction of the Board of Revenue that the land may be allotted to the Scheduled Caste and scheduled tribes community after preparing the Z.A. Form 57 and Z.A. Form 58 is concerned, it has very well contended in the writ petition that there is neither scheduled caste nor scheduled tribe person in the said Village. 6 10. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment, judgment and orders passed by the both the Courts below as well as counter affidavit filed by the State. After going through the same, I am of the view that the Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in allowing the revision of the petitioners as he has taken each and every documents available on record. In the finding of the judgment passed by the Additional Commissioner, it has already come that since Smt. Brahmi Devi was the mother of the member of the Land Management Committee, therefore, he was not allotted the land. Therefore, the Board of Revenue has erred in allowing the revision filed by Mr. Balbir and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration). 11. For the reasons recorded above, present writ petitions deserve to be allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 5.1.2000 is quashed and the order dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) is upheld. 12. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour