Allotment Cancelled After 26 Years 'Total Abuse Of Process': Allahabad High Court Restores Land To Family
The Allahabad High Court has held that an agricultural allotment made in 1987 could not be cancelled under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in proceedings started on a private complaint 26 years later, more so where the allottee had by then been recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights.
Section 198(6) of the Act fixes the outer limit for issuing a notice to show cause in such proceedings. For an allotment made before November 10, 1980, the notice must issue within seven years of that date; for one made on or after it, within five years of the allotment or lease, or up to November 10, 1987, whichever is later.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,
“In the instant matter, the allotment was made in the year 1987 and in pursuance thereof, the allottee/ petitioner' father was recorded initially as bhumidhar with non-transferable right and later on bhumidhar with transferable right. It is further material to mention that the cancellation proceeding has been initiated in the year 2013 that is after about 26 years which is total abuse of process of law.”
Petitioner's father, along with another person, was allotted plot no. 624, which stood recorded as banjar, in February 1987, for having participated in the Government's family planning scheme. Pursuant to the allotment the allottees were recorded first as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and later as bhumidhar with transferable rights.
Cancellation proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated in 2013 on a private complaint. The Collector, Hathras cancelled the allotment on 01.07.2015, and the petitioner's revision under Section 333 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-II), Aligarh Region on 29.08.2016. He then approached the High Court.
Petitioner submitted that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary as the proceeding had been started after 26 years, and that an allotment made for participation in the family planning scheme could not be cancelled.
Counsel for the State and for respondent no. 4 submitted that the plot was recorded as khalihan in the revenue record and in C.H. Form 45, that its nature could not be changed to banjar, and that no right accrued to the petitioner from the 1987 allotment. It was submitted that Section 198(6) would consequently not apply, reliance being placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Babu Singh Vs. Consolidation Officer and others.
Relying on Rishi Pal & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others, the Court noted that a complaint made beyond the period prescribed under the Act was barred by limitation, and limitation goes to the very root of the matter and can be raised before the High Court even where it was not agitated below.
It further noted that an earlier bench in Jitendra Kumar Urf Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and others had held that where an allottee has been ordered to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights, that right cannot be taken away despite cancellation of the allotment.
The Court held,
“…petitioner's father was allotted the plot in question due to participation of the petitioner's father in the family planning scheme of the Government, as such, the allotment cannot be cancelled on the basis of the highly time barred cancellation proceeding initiated by private complainant specially when the allottees have became bhumidhar with transferable right.”
It held that Babu Singh would not apply to the peculiar facts of the case, as the allottee had become bhumidhar with transferable rights and the allotment had been made for participation in a scheme launched by the Government itself.
Accordingly, the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Collector were set aside. Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the authorities to correct the entry of the plot in the name of the petitioner forthwith.
Case Title: Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others