- (1.) THE petitioner is a complainant alleging that the allotments that have been made by the Land Management Committee in favour of the contesting respondents are not in accordance with Rule 176 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952. One of the main contentions is that there has been no advertisement by the Land Management Committee before proceeding with the allotment. Even otherwise no procedure has been followed and persons, who are ineligible have been allotted land.
(2.) FROM the facts on record, it emerges that 20 persons had been allotted land on 5.8.2008. Out of the said allotments except the names of those persons appearing at serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, the others were proposed to be approved which was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 11.1.2010. The allotments came to be challenged in a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 14.10.2010 setting aside the order dated 11.1.2010 with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. The petitioner - Pati Ram filed a Writ Petition No.4518 of 2011 which was taken up by a Division Bench and the following order was passed on 25.1.2011:- "For redressal of the grievance, the petitioner may move an application before the Collector/District Magistrate, Etah who is to look into the matter on merit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the decision given by this Court and a copy of which is annexed along with this application. The petition is disposed of accordingly." The Collector, Etah, appears to have taken up the matter and vide order dated 9.6.2011 held that the allotments were in relation to land which had been reserved for some public purpose and that the allotments had been made in favour of persons against the preferential category as prescribed under the Act & Rules. Accordingly, the resolution of allotment dated 5.8.2008 was set aside and directions were issued for making fresh allotments after advertisement in the light of the judgment in another case by this Court namely Rajesh Babu and another Vs. State of U.P. And others, decided on 22.12.2009, which in turn relies on the judgment in the case of Raja Ram Vs. Son Kali, 2009 (107) RD 796.
(3.) THE respondents appear to have gone up in revision before the Board of Revenue against the said order of the Collector which has been set aside with a direction to the Collector to decide the matter again after excluding land which falls within the definition of public utility land under Section 132 of the 1950 Act. This order of the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2011 has been assailed by the complainant contending that the Board of Revenue could not have sidelined or overlooked the ratio of the decision in the case of Raja Ram (supra) and could not have passed a judgment which runs counter to the same. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that by virtue of the impugned order, the earlier direction of the Court and the judgment in the case of Raja Ram (supra) has been avoided for no justification. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have both urged that the judgment in the case of Raja Ram does not take into account the financial status of the Gaon Sabha as also it's functioning and resources while issuing a direction for issuing advertisements in Hindi local daily newspapers "Dainik Jagran" and "Amar Ujala". They contend that Rule 173 and Rule 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules 1952 are sufficiently exhaustive and have not been amended as yet till date and, therefore, a direction by this Court to issue advertisements for allotment is against the interest of the Gaon Sabha and would be a heavy financial burden on the Gaon Sabha if such directions are to be carried out. They also contend that on account of such directions, the Gaon Sabha will be unable to proceed that would be detrimental to none others than those who are entitled for allotment being landless agricultural labourers. They, therefore, contend that the law as indicated in Raja Ram's case requires a reconsideration and if necessary, the same may be referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.;