SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 287, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others 
v. 
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2012)
16 May 2024
[C. T. Ravikumar and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Subject land was designated as a Panchayat Ghar however, later 
it was re-assigned for residential use and allotments were made 
to allottees including appellants (writ petitioners in High Court) 
u/s.122-C, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Act. Proceedings for cancellation of the allotments were initiated 
based on the report of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after 
13 years from the date of allotment. Since, there is no limitation 
fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act, 
whether such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length 
of time or at any point of time where no limitation is prescribed. 
Whether any fraud was committed by the writ petitioners or was 
attributed to them under the show cause notices.
Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act – 
s.122-C(6) – Cancellation of allotment of land, no limitation 
fixed for initiation of the proceedings – Exercise of suo moto 
power by Collector, if can be at any time or such power is 
to be exercised within a reasonable time and if so, within 
what time:
Held: This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue namely 
the exercise of suo moto power u/sub-section (4) of s.50-B of Andhra 
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy
and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 
in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh 
Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 698, wherein it was held that suo moto 
power should be exercised within a reasonable period even in case of 
fraud and within a reasonable time from the date of discovery of fraud 
and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Further, 
in sub-section (4) of s.50-B, AP Act, the expression “the collector 
may, suo moto at any time;” is occurring while such expression is 
conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of s.122-(C) of UPZALR
288
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Act – Furthermore, the report or the communication of the Lekhpal 
forwarded to the Tehsildar does not even suggest or indicate any 
fraud having occurred or alleged against writ petitioners – However, 
the Tehsildar in the report submitted to the District Magistrate, on 
the basis of certain presumed irregularities concluded that allotment 
was irregular and approval of allotment was on the basis of forged 
signature of Sub-District Magistrate – Although, the basis of such 
conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having 
been forged was not specified – No allegation of whatsoever nature 
was attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s 
– In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fraud was 
attributed to the writ petitioners in show cause notices – Impugned 
order of the High Court; the order passed by the Additional Collector 
which held that proceedings for cancellation could be started at any 
time as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, 
(Administration) Moradabad Division are unsustainable and set 
aside. [Paras 13, 15-17, 19]
Case Law Cited
Additional Commssioner, Revenue and Others v. 
Akhalaq Hussain and Another [2020] 2 SCR 1001 : 
(2020) 4 SCC 507; State of Punjab v. Bhatinda Milk 
Producer Union Limited [2007] 11 SCR 14 : (2007) 
11 SCC 363; Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie 
Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 
698 : (2003) 7
SCC 667 – relied on.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
List of Keywords
Cancellation of allotment of land; Panchayat ghar; Period of 
limitation not prescribed; Fraud; Exercise of suo moto power; 
Within reasonable time/period; Discovery of fraud; Forged 
signature; Show cause notices.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2010 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 1995 of 2010
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
289
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.  
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others
Appearances for Parties
Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv. for the Appellants.
Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak 
Mohan, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J. 
1.	
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2010 passed 
in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 by the High Court of judicature at 
Allahabad whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein 
(hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioners or petitioners’) challenging 
the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Revision No.68 of 2008-09 came 
to be dismissed and said order came to be upheld for the reason 
that the revision petition is not maintainable and consequently the 
order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector holding 
that proceedings for cancellation of the patta could be started at any 
time came to be upheld.
2.	
By our order dated 13.03.2024, we had made it clear that since none 
had appeared on behalf of the appellants (writ petitioners) no further 
adjournment would be granted and in the interest of justice one last 
opportunity came to be extended to the writ petitioners. However, 
even today when the matter is called in the second round none has 
appeared on behalf of the appellants. Hence, we have proceeded 
to examine the case on merits by considering the pleas advanced 
in the appeal, grounds urged therein
and the arguments advanced 
on behalf of the respondents’ counsel.
3.	
Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
4.	
In the year 1969-70, the khasra plot No.185 in Rampur Kedhar Village, 
UP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared 
unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion 
of the said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant 
Collector and subsequently different plots of land in said survey number 
came to be allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners 
under Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act (hereafter referred to as ‘UPZALR Act’ for short).
290
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5.	
After 13 years, the Secretary/Lekhpal of Bhumi Prabandhank 
Samiti, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar 
opining thereunder that plot No.185 had been originally designated 
as Panchayat Ghar and classified under Section 132 of UPZALR 
Act and accordingly recorded in the revenue records, which had 
been unlawfully allotted for residential use. Hence, he proposed for 
cancellation of the allotments made and to take possession of the 
land from all the allottees including writ petitioners. The Tehsildar in 
turn forwarded a proposal to the District Magistrate for cancellation 
of the allotment vide communication dated 18.06.2007. This, resulted 
in show cause notices dated 05.07.2007 being issued to the writ 
petitioners and same was duly replied by them by filing objections 
on 04.10.2007. An application came to be filed by the petitioners 
to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, since the 
proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment 
contending inter alia that within a period of 3 years the proceedings 
ought to have been initiated. The Additional Collector by order dated 
07.02.2008 was of the view that action initiated being suo moto, no 
limitation has been provided under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act; 
that during the consolidation proceedings the land had been specified 
“Panchayat Ghar” and it was covered under Section 132(6) of the 
UPZALR Act;
the allotment of land being irregular and no time limit 
having been fixed for cancellation of allotment made under Section 
122-C(6). Hence, he arrived at a conclusion that there is no limitation 
fixed under the Act and proceeded to reject the application filed.
6.	
Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petition came to be 
filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be entertained 
on merits and dismissed.
7.	
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two (2) orders, the writ petitioners 
challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 which came to 
be dismissed on two grounds namely the revision petition filed was 
not maintainable in the teeth of Section 122-C(7); and, on the ground 
that impugned order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional 
Collector over-ruling the objections of the writ petitioners with regard 
to limitation is correct and it was meritless. Hence, this appeal.
8.	
As already noticed by us herein above, none have appeared on 
behalf of the writ petitioners. Shri Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel 
appearing for the respondent-state has vehemently contended
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
291
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.  
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others
that fraud vitiates all acts and in the instant case the revenue was 
empowered under the UPZALR Act to cancel the illegal and fraudulent 
allotment of land made in favour of the writ petitioners and as such 
suit had been instituted for cancellation of allotment for which no 
limitation has been specified under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR 
Act and particularly when the land in question had been reserved 
as Panchayat Ghar it would be governed under Section 132 of the 
UPZALR Act. He would also submit that even otherwise where a 
bhumidhar uses the land for a purpose not connected with agriculture, 
horticulture or animal husbandry same would be in contravention of 
Section 143 and admittedly no permission had been procured for the 
usage of the land for residential purposes as required under Section 
143. Hence, he would contend that the authorities were within their 
jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for cancelling the allotment and 
the revenue authorities as well as the High Court had rightly refused to 
interfere with the impugned order dated 07.02.2008 and rejected the 
writ petition whereunder they had sought for the suit being dismissed 
as barred by limitation. Hence, he prays for rejection of this appeal. 
9.	
Having heard the learned Counsel representing the State, it would 
be apposite to note the order dated 17.07.2012 passed by this 
Court. It reads:
“Leave
granted.
In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain 
status quo in respect of the disputed land, as it is 
obtaining today. This would necessarily mean that neither 
party shall change the present character of the property 
or alienate the same to any other person in any manner 
whatsoever.”
(Emphasis Supplied by us)
10.	 The writ petitioners who are rustic and illiterate villagers had 
submitted applications for allotment of land for purposes of house 
construction in the village Dhodhar, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District 
Moradabad. Pursuant to the same the writ petitioner’s husband/
father amongst others were allotted 150 sq. yards land each in 
Gata No. 185 Mi. The said allotment came to be approved by the 
Sub-District Magistrate on 27.06.1994 and allotment was made 
in pursuance to the proposal dated 15.05.1994 forwarded by The
292
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Land Management Committee, Rampur, Dhodhar. Hence, the writ 
petitioners and other allottees have put up construction by putting 
up residential accommodation and have been residing therein with 
their family members. However, after a period of 13 years namely on 
13.06.2007 the Lekhpal submitted a report for cancellation of such 
allotment on the ground that the land allotted to the writ petitioners 
and other allottees were classified as Panchayat Ghar and as 
per Section 132 of UPZALR Act the same could not have been 
allotted to the writ petitioners. Based on the said report, Tehsildar, 
on 18.06.2007 forwarded a report to the Sub-District Magistrate, 
proposing thereunder to initiate proceedings and recommended for 
cancellation of the allotment. Hence, the proceedings for cancellation 
of the allotment came to be initiated by issuance of show cause 
notice dated 05.07.2007 to all the allottees.
11.	 Thus, it emerges from the afore-stated facts that the authorities 
initiated the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment initially 
based on the report dated 13.06.2007 of the Lekhpal which was 
undisputedly after 13 years from the date of allotment. It is no doubt 
true that there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings 
under the UPZALR Act as contended by the learned Counsel for the 
Respondents. This Court in Additional Commssioner, Revenue 
and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 SCC
507 
vide paragraph 28 has held that sub-section (6) of Section 122C 
empowers the collector to enquire with regard to the manner of 
allotment being irregular and may proceed to cancel the allotment 
if he satisfies that such allotment is irregular. Section 122C (6) 
reads as under:
“122C (6) The Collector may of his own motion and 
shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an 
allotment of land under this section inquire in the manner 
prescribed into such allotment, and if he is satisfied that 
the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment, and 
thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and 
of every other person claiming through him in the land 
allotted shall cease.”
12.	 However, the question which requires to be addressed is whether 
such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length of time or 
at any point of time where no limitation is prescribed. This Court
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
293
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.  
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others
in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited 
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 has held:
“18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been 
prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction 
within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the 
reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the 
statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant 
factors.”
13.	 This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue in the 
matter of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham 
v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667 namely the exercise of 
suo moto power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of Andhra 
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 
1950 (for short ‘AP Act’) i.e., can it be at any time or such power 
is to be exercised within a reasonable time and if so, within what 
time? The facts obtained in the said case was that the owners of 
the subtle land executed various sale deeds in favour of different 
persons on plain paper and possession of the lands was also 
delivered to the purchasers. The vendees applied under Section 
50-B of the AP Act for validation of sales and the concerned 
Tehsildar issued validation certificates on various dates. The said 
orders of the Tehsildar came to be challenged before the Joint 
Collector of the District by the Special Tehsildar and authorised 
officer (land reforms)
which appeals came to be dismissed in 
1988. It is thereafter the Joint Collector issued show cause notices 
purporting to exercise the suo moto power under sub-section (4) 
of Section 50-B of the Act to both the vendors and the vendees as 
to why the validation certificates issued in the year 1974 or earlier 
should not be cancelled after considering the objections filed in 
response to the show cause notices, the Joint Collector set aside 
the validation certificates in 1989. The learned Single Judge before 
whom challenge was laid accepted the plea of the writ petitioners 
by arriving at a conclusion that suo moto power of revision ought 
to have been exercised within a reasonable period, though Section 
50-B (4) of the Act empowers the authority to exercise such suo 
moto power at any time. The impleading applicants who had filed 
the complaint, assailed the order of learned Single Judge before 
the Division Bench without success. In so far as the validation 
certificates which were found to be fraught with fraud came to be
294
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
set aside by the Division Bench and also taking into account that 
the parties did not produce the documents.
14.	  Sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the AP Act can be juxtaposition 
with sub-section (6) of Section 122-C of the UPZALR Act for immediate 
reference and it reads:
Section 122-C (6)  
of UPZALR Act
Section 50-B (4) 
of AP Act
122-C (6) The Collector may 
of his own motion and shall on 
the application of any person 
aggrieved by an allotment of 
land under this section inquire in 
the manner prescribed into such 
allotment, and if he is satisfied 
that the allotment is irregular, 
he may cancel the allotment, 
and thereupon the right, title 
and interest of the allottee and 
of every other person claiming 
through him in the land allotted 
shall cease. 
50-B (4) The Collector may, 
suo-motu at any time, call 
for and examine the record 
relating to any certificate issued 
or proceedings taken by the 
Tahsildar under this section for 
the purpose of satisfying himself 
as to the legality or propriety 
of such certificate or as to the 
regularity of such proceedings 
and pass such order in relation 
thereto as he may think fit: 
Provided that no order adversely 
affecting any person shall be 
passed under this sub-section 
unless such person has had 
an opportunity of making his 
representation thereto. 
15.	 In Ibrahimpatnam’s case (supra) wherein sub-section (4) of Section 
50-B was pressed into service
discloses that the expression ‘the 
collector may, suo moto at any time; is occurring while such 
expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of Section 
122-(C) of UPZALR Act. In the aforesaid case, it came to be held 
by the Apex Court that suo moto power should be exercised within 
a reasonable period even in case of fraud and within a reasonable 
time from the date of discovery of fraud and it depends on facts and 
circumstances of each case. It came to be further held: 
“12. The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied 
on various decisions including the decisions of this Court 
as to how the use of the words “at any time” in sub-section
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
295
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.  
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others
(4) of Section 50-B of the Act should be understood. In 
the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court 
approves and affirms the decision of the learned Single 
Judge. Where a statute provides any suo motu power of 
revision without prescribing any period of limitation, the 
power must be exercised within a reasonable time and 
what is “reasonable time” has to be determined on the 
facts of each case.
13. In the light of what is stated above, we are of the 
view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right 
in affirming the view of the learned Single Judge of the 
High Court that the suo motu power under sub-section 
(4) of Section 50-B of the Act is to be exercised within a 
reasonable time.
19. It is also necessary to note that the suo motu power 
was sought to be exercised by the Joint Collector after 
13-15 years. Section 50-B was amended in the year 
1979 by adding sub-section (4), but no action was taken 
to invalidate the certificates in exercise of the suo motu 
power till 1989. There is no convincing explanation as to 
why the authorities waited for such a long time. It appears 
that sub-section (4) was added so as to take action where 
alienations or transfers were made to defeat the provisions 
of the Land Ceiling Act. The Land Ceiling Act having come 
into force on 1-1-1975, the authorities should have made 
inquiries and efforts so as to exercise
the suo motu power 
within reasonable time. The action of the Joint Collector 
in exercising suo motu power after several years and not 
within reasonable period and passing orders cancelling 
validation certificates given by the Tahsildar, as rightly held 
by the High Court, could not be sustained.”
In the teeth of the expression ‘any time’ not being found in sub-
section (6) of Section 122-C, it would not detain us for too long to 
set aside the impugned orders. 
16.	 However, in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the issue of fraud 
would arise in the instant case? And if so, whether such foundational 
facts had been laid in the proceedings initiated? Or such fraud, if 
any, has been committed by the writ petitioners or attributed to
296
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
them under the show cause notices has also been examined. The 
foundational facts narrated herein above, at the cost of repetition 
requires to be noticed namely the report or the communication of 
the Lekhpal dated 13.06.2007 forwarded to the Tehsildar. Perusal 
of the same does not even suggest or indicate of such fraud having 
occurred or alleged against writ petitioners. However, in the report 
dated 18.06.2007 submitted by the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate, 
it has been stated therein that subject land had been preserved for 
Panchayat Ghar and it is based on the information furnished by the 
peshkar working in the office Sub-District Magistrate who is said to 
have intimated that the file does not bear the signature of the then 
Sub-District Magistrate and the Tehsildar is also said to have found 
certain irregularities. In other words, on the basis of such presumed 
irregularities he has jumped to the conclusion that allotment was 
irregular, against law and approval of allotment was on the basis of 
forged signature of Sub-District Magistrate. However, the basis of such 
conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having 
been forged is not specified or in other words report is silent. It is 
also interesting to note that no allegation of whatsoever nature has 
been attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s. 
In this background, we are of the considered view that the
principles 
enunciated by this Court in Ibrahimpatnam’s case (supra) would 
be squarely applicable to the facts on hand and as such the order 
impugned herein cannot be sustained.
17.	 We also make it clear that though the power of the Collector is 
available to initiate suo moto action for cancellation of allotment 
under sub-section (6) of Section 122-C in case of fraud and such 
foundational facts would disclose the same, it would suffice to initiate 
the proceedings as fraud vitiates all proceedings as held in Akhalaq 
Hussain’s case referred to supra. By making this position of law 
explicitly clear and in the facts and circumstances of the present 
case as unfolded which is discussed in detail herein above disclosing 
same not being laid in show cause notices, we are of the considered 
view that impugned order as well as the orders impugned before the 
writ court would not be sustainable.
18.	 Yet another factor which has swayed in our mind to quash the 
impugned order is the fact that pursuant to the allotment made 
on 27.06.1994 the allottees who are poor rustic villagers have 
constructed their houses and the allotment was made based on the
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
297
Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.  
State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others
approval granted by the then Sub-District Magistrate and they have 
been residing in the residential buildings so constructed by them 
for the last several years and to unsettle the same would result in 
heaping injustice to those poor hapless persons and particularly 
when the subject land has been utilized for allotment to the poor 
and houseless persons.
19.	 For the cumulative reasons afore-stated, appeal is allowed and 
the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 as well as the order dated 
07.02.2008, passed by Additional Collector- respondent No.3 
herein and the order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Additional 
Commissioner, (Administration) Moradabad Division are hereby set 
aside subject to observation made herein above. No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.