JAI PAL Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-30
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 14,2013

JAI PAL Appellant
VERSUS
ADDL. COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) On 20th April, 1993, the Land Management Committee, Lav, Pargana-Bhagwanpur, Tehsil-Roorkee, District Haridwar passed resolution granting Patta (lease) in question in favour of the petitioners. Possession was also given to the petitioners. It is asserted that the petitioners have their cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. On 20.01.1994, the said resolution was accepted by the Additional Collector, Haridwar. Thereafter, on 18.03.1994, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed application under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and-Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and prayed for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioners. On the said complaint, the Addl. Collector, Haridwar issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Thereafter, on 31st March, 1999, the Addl. Collector, Haridwar cancelled the allotment granted in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of Addl. Collector, the petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner, Saharanpur. On 08.04.1999, the Commissioner, Saharanpur allowed the revision preferred by the petitioners and set-aside the order dated 31.03.1999 passed by the Addl. Collector, Haridwar. The Commissioner, Saharanpur remanded the matter to the Collector, Haridwar for deciding the same at his own level. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed review application before the Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur, who vide order dated 25th January, 2000 allowed the review application. While reviewing the order, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur held that the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to pass order under Section 198(4) of the Act.
(3.) The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Saharanpur dated 25.01.2000 and also the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Haridwar dated 31.03.199 are illegal inasmuch as, Additional Collector, Haridwar has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 198(4) of the Act. For appreciating the contention of the counsel for the petitioners, Section 3(4) of the Act, which defines the word 'Collector' is being reproduced hereunder:- Collector' means an officer appointed as Collector under the provision of the UP. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector of First Class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any function of a Collector under this Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.