Devta Deen and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Devta Deen and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 29, 1997

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/449989

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/449989
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: R.H. Zaidi, J.
Decided On: Aug 29, 1997
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2155 (M/S) of 1997 and other 3 Petitions
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Property - service of show cause notice - Sections 198 (4) and (5) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - land allotted to petitioners by land management committee and patta approved by S. D. O. - case not covered by the proviso which carves an exception to provisions of Section 198 (5) - whenever...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Zamidiari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198 and 198(4) and (5); Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devta Deen and Others

Advocate S.M. Waseem and ;S.C. Tewari, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate C.S.C

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Zamidiari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198 and 198(4) and (5); Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 1998(1)AWC161

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........the orders passed by the authorities below were illegal and manifestly erroneous. they were non est in law as the same were passed in violation of provisions of section 198 of the act as well as in violation of principles of natural justice.6. sub-section (5) of section 198 of the act provides as under :'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.' 7. the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 198 of the u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950, are apparently mandatory. whenever action is taken under sub-section (4) of section 198, it is obligatory upon the collector to issue a show cause notice to the person in whose favour allotment or lease was made or to his legal representatives except in the cases covered by the aforesaid proviso.8. where the land was allotted to the petitioners by the land management committee of the village and the patta was approved by the s.d.o., case was not covered by the proviso, which carves an exception to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 198 of the act. it is also well-settled in law that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is non est in law.9. learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that it was obligatory upon the collector to afford an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners before cancelling their pattas and before setting aside the order of approval. he himself suggested that the impugned orders be set aside and the collector be directed to decide the case in accordance with law.10. in view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned orders.....

Full Judgment

R.H. Zaidi, J.

1. In these petitions since pure questions of law are involved and as desired by counsel for the parties, they are disposed of finally by common judgment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel Sri A.K. Varma and also perused the record.

3. By means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.9.1995 and 15.7.1995.

4. It appears that the proceedings under Section 198 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) were initiated against the petitioners, in respect of the land in dispute and order of ejectment dated 11.9.1995 was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer behind the back of the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, holding that their pattas were farzi and it was not necessary to provide them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners aggrieved by the orders dated 11.9.1995 filed a revision challenging the validity of the said order before the Commissioner of the Division. It was urged before the Commissioner that the order dated 11.9.1995 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The same was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Commissioner did not attach any weight to the said argument and dismissed the revision vide his order dated 11.9.1995, which is quoted below :--

^esjs }kjk lh- vkj- vks- dsvkns'k dks ns[kk A pwfd vkoaVu esa QthZ dk;Zokgh gqbZ gS ,ao fjdk MZ esa HkhgsjQsj gqvk gS A vr% iV~Vk /kkjdksa dks lquus dk vkSfpR; ugha Fkk A lh- vkj- vks-us lHkh fcUnqvks ij foLrkj ls izdk'k Mkyk gS A ,sls esa fjohtu fujLr A fjohtfu LV;fn ik= gSa rks os vkoaVu gsrq lEcfU/kr ijxukf/kdkjh dks izkFkZuk&i;= nsafu;ekuqlkj fuLrkj.k djk,saxs A*

5. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders, present petitions were filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the orders passed by the authorities below were illegal and manifestly erroneous. They were non est in law as the same were passed in violation of provisions of Section 198 of the Act as well as in violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act provides as under :

'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.'

7. The provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, are apparently mandatory. Whenever action is taken under sub-section (4) of Section 198, it is obligatory upon the Collector to issue a show cause notice to the person in whose favour allotment or lease was made or to his legal representatives except in the cases covered by the aforesaid proviso.

8. Where the land was allotted to the petitioners by the Land Management Committee of the village and the patta was approved by the S.D.O., case was not covered by the proviso, which carves an exception to the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act. It is also well-settled in law that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is non est in law.

9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that it was obligatory upon the Collector to afford an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners before cancelling their pattas and before setting aside the order of approval. He himself suggested that the impugned orders be set aside and the Collector be directed to decide the case in accordance with law.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned orders which have been passed in utter disregard and violation of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 198 as well as in violation of principles of natural justice are liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.9.95 and 15.7.95 are hereby quashed. The Collector is directed to decide the cases afresh after following the procedure prescribed under law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1997 Same Parties Devta Deen and Others vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge R.H. Zaidi, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Zamidiari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ...

Property