Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Panchayatraj Inter College, Baragaon, Shahjahanpur has filed this writ petition against an order under Section 117(6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly resuming certain land which appears to have been contributed by the tenure holders of the village for public purpose and reserved for a play ground for the college under the U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act. The resumption was made on the basis of a report submitted that this land is required for setting up of a power substation of the U.P. Power Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the resumption.
(2.) I have heard Sari B.B.Jauhari counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the land was reserved for a specific public purpose i.e. for the play ground for the college and even conceding that the power of resumption could be exercised the purpose for which the land is to be used can not be changed. Setting up a power sub-station is a different purpose for which the land was not reserved under the final consolidation scheme. The validity of the impugned order has to be tested in the light of the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act particularly Section 29C thereof. Sub-section (1) of Section 29C provides that the land contributed by the tenure holders for public purpose shall be deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha in an area in which the provisions of Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act applies, and in the State government in other areas, and shall be used for the purpose for which it was earmarked in the final consolidation scheme unless that purpose has failed in which case it can be used for any other purpose as may be prescribed by rules. Sub-section (2) provides that the provisions of Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such land vested in the Gaon Sabha as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of a declaration by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of that Section. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C and submitted that as the public purpose of the playground for the school had not failed, the Commissioner was not competent to resume the land for any other purpose. On the other hand the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that Sub-section (2) of Section 29C is independent of Sub-section (1) and in fact controls Sub-section (1) and under Sub-section (2) the power to resume the land is without any fetters and can be exercised for any purpose, even through the purpose for which it was earmarked in the consolidation scheme may not have failed. In the present case the land has been resumed for the purpose of setting up of a power substation, which is undisputedly a public purpose.;