Neutral Citation No.

- 2018:AHC:62150

A.F.R.
Court No. - 25

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65460 of 2013

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Urf Gopal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar
Aditya,D.M.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

The petitioner was granted patta in the year 1996
after the resolution of the Management Committee was
approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950 (hereinafter called as 'the
1950 Act'), Manjhanpur, Kaushambi by his order dated
15.8.1996. Thereafter upon completion of 10 years as
per the provisions of the 1950 Act, the petitioner was
recognized as a bhumidhar with transferable rights.
This change of status was recognized by an order
dated 24.4.2007. However, when in the month of July,
2010, the petitioner came to know about an order
which was passed on 27.1.2010 by which his name
had been expunged from the Revenue Record and his
patta had been cancelled the petitioner preferred a
revision before the Commissioner who remitted the
matter back on 2.8.2010 to the Collector for
reconsideration. However, the Collector again
cancelled the patta on 13.12.2010 and the
Commissioner before whom the revision was filed
dismissed the same on 7.10.2013. Aggrieved thereof,
the petitioner has approached this Court by means of a
 2

writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that when the patta was granted to him in the year
1996, the same could have been cancelled only within
the time frame provided by Section 198 of the 1950
Act, and that too after serving a notice on him. Learned
counsel for the petitioner read out Sections 198 (4),
(5), (6) and (7), therefore, the same are being
reproduced here as under:-
“Section 198(4). 'The [Collector] may of his own
motion and shall on the application of any person
aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the
manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is
satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may
cancel the allotment and the lease, if any.

Section 198 (5). 'No order for cancellation of an

allotment or lease shall be made under sub-
section (4), unless a notice to show cause is
served on the person in whose favour the
allotment or lease was made or on his legal
representatives:
Provided that no such notice shall be
necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of
any allotment or lease where such proceedings
were pending before the Collector or any other
Court or authority on August 18, 1980.
Section 198 (6). Every notice to show cause
mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued –
(a) in the case of an allotment of land made
before November 10, 1980, (hereinafter
referred to as the said date), before the
expiry of a period of [seven years] from the
said date; and
(b) in the case of an allotment of land made
on or after the said date, before the expiry of
a period of [five years from the date of such
allotment or lease or up to November 10,
 3

1987, whichever be later].

Section 198(7). Where the allotment or lease of

any land is cancelled under sub-section (4) the
following consequences shall ensue, namely-
(i) the right, title and interest of the allottee or
lessee or any other person claiming through
him in such land shall case and the land
shall revert to the Gaon Sabha;
(ii) the [Collector] may direct delivery of
possession of such land forthwith to the
Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person
holding or retaining possession thereof and
may for that purpose use or cause to be
used such force as may be necessary.”
To bolster his submissions with regard to the
issue that the petitioners patta could not be cancelled
after the time stipulated in the 1950 Act, the petitioner
cited two decisions of this Court reported in 2010 (3)
AWC 2834 : Suresh Giri and Others vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and Others. and 2012 (2)
ADJ 683 : Jiya Ram and Others v. State of U.P. And
Others and submitted that even if the patta had to be
cancelled suo motu by the Collector then it had to be
done within the time permitted by the 1950 Act.

What is more, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that once when the petitioner had
been declared a bhumidhar with transferable right
under Section 131 B of the 1950 Act then the
provisions of Section 198 (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the
1950 Act would not apply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, further,
submitted that though the notice was not served he
 4

had been able to lay his hands on it later on and had

found that it had been sent to him on 11.8.2009. The
ground for the cancellation in the notice was that he
was not doing any agricultural work on the land in
question. Learned counsel submitted that firstly, the
notice was barred by limitation provided under the
1950 Act and secondly he was doing agricultural work
on it as was evident from the Revenue Records.
Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, submitted
that the notice definitely, was there and since it was
found that the petitioner was not cultivating the land it
was only proper that the patta was cancelled.
Learned Standing Counsel also stated that upon
finding that the agricultural work was not being done,
the land was allotted to a School as after the
cancellation of the patta the land had vested in the
Gaon Sabha.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I
am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be
sustained. First of all, the notice was barred by
limitation. Secondly, the petitioner by an order of the
State had been declared a bhumidhar with transferable
rights and the cancellation of the patta was of no
consequence and thirdly the ground taken for the
cancellation of the patta was also not in existence. If
the period of limitation as is prescribed under the Act of
1950 expires then no notice can be issued even if
there are irregularities in the patta. Further even if a
suo motu notice is to be issued by the Collector then
 5

also the question of limitation would arise and notices

have to be issued well within the time prescribed by the
1950 Act.
What is more, once when a tenure holder who
was earlier granted a patta becomes a bhumidhar with
transferable rights, then howsoever much the patta
which was granted earlier is cancelled it would not
affect his right as a bhumidhar and he shall continue to
remain a bhumidhar over the land in question.
Under such circumstances, the order dated
13.12.2010 passed by respondent no. 3 and the order
dated 7.10.2013 passed by respondent no. 2 are
hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :-13.4.2018
praveen.