Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 749 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mukut Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
These are two connected writ petitions. Facts of both the writ petitions are
almost identical. Therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided under a
common judgment, taking into account the facts of Writ Petition No. 749 of
2010..
This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 14.08.2006 and dated
25.08.2009. By means of the first order the Sub Divisional Magistrate held
that the term of the Asami Patta, granted in favour of the petitioner, had
already expired and therefore he has no right to continue in possession of the
land, belonging to the Gram Sabha, any further. Not being satisfied with the
said order the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Kanpur
Division, Kanpur under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The revision
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed after recording that the petitioner
has failed to establish any right to continue in possession after expiry of the
term of Asami Patta granted in his favour. It has, therefore, been held that the
order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is legally justified and no legal right is
left with the petitioner to continue in possession.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier order of the Sub Divisional
Magistrate was passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
Standing Counsel in reply points out that this Court in the case of Nasir
Hasan vs. District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Bijnor and
others, reported in 2009 (108) RD 17, after referring to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India,
reported in 2007 (4) SCC 54 and Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali
Khan, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2783, held that affording of opportunity of
hearing in the facts of the case would be an empty formality, inasmuch as it
has now been well settled that once the term of the Asami Patta has expired,
the allottee has no right to continue in possession over the land belonging to
the Gram Sabha.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, I
find that the finding recorded by the revisional court qua there being no right
in the petitioner to continue in possession after expiry of term of Asami Patta,
is strictly in accordance with law and in conformity with the judgment of this
Court in the case of Nasir Hasan (supra) and Ram Deo and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, reported in 2008(4) ADJ 625.
This Court may clarify that in the case of Ram Deo (supra) the Court has held
that since the Patta has been cancelled on the ground that the term of the
Asami Patta has expired, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the
petitioner. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before the
authority concerned under Section 176-A(2). In the facts of the present case
the petitioner filed a revision before the higher authority, which has been
dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference against the order passed by the Board
of Revenue is warranted in the facts of the present case. Both the writ
petitions are dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010
Pkb/