Status Of Bhumidar Cannot Be Revised If Conditions U/S 122-B (4-F) UP Zamindari Abolition Act Are Satisfied: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that if the condition under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are satisfied, then the labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, will be considered the Bhumidhar of the land and such bhumidhari cannot be subjected to revision by any authority.
Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 from before 13.05.2007, and the same does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) “then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and [he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in that land.”
The Court relied on the judgment in Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, where the Supreme Court has held that
“sub-section (4-F) not only protects the possession of an eligible agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe but also confers upon such person the status of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights by virtue of a statutory deeming provision. The said provision has been enacted as a measure of agrarian reform to achieve socio-economic justice and the benefit conferred under the provision cannot be curtailed by adopting a narrow or technical approach.”
The Court noted that similar views had been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Sushila and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and Ganga Raman Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste agricultural labour, is in possession of Plot No. 147/2 M area 0.400 hectares situated at Village Laglesra, Pargana Asiwan Rasoolabad. Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao since before 03.06.1995. in proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, after due inquiry, petitioner was granted the benefit under Section 122-B(4-F) and was declared the Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.
Opposite party no.2, ex-pradhan of the village and an upper caste person, eyed the property of the petitioner. Once the order declaring petitioner as bhumidhar was passed, the opposite party no. 2 moved an application for recall. The order was set aside without an notice to the petitioner. Petitioner filed a recall application which was allowed by the Pargana Adhikari and the ex-parte order was recalled.
Opposite party no.2 filed a revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow against the order of the recall. The revision was allowed and the recall order of the Pargana Adhikari giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was set aside. This order was challenged before the High Court by the petitioner.
The Court observed that the order of the Pargana Adhikari which was set aside by the Commissioner only restored principles of natural justice and did not decide any substantial rights of the petitioner. It held that by restoring the ex-parte order, the revisional authority took away the petitioner's right to defend.
For upholding the rights of the petitioner under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Court also relied on Brahmanand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and Bhola Vs. State of U.P. wherein the Allahabad High Court held that rights under Section 122-B(4-F) flow from statutory provisions and once a person is declared as bhumidhar upon satisfying the conditions, then such right cannot be revised and must be recognized.
Observing that the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 122-B(4-F), the Court set aside the order of the revisional authority. The Court restored the order of the Pargana Adhikari and directed fresh decision in the matter following principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Sahab Das Objection Filed v. Additional Commissioner judicial Lucknow Division and another