2011 (5) TMI 1062 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of Petitioner's Land
2. Validity of Orders Dated 6.4.2011 and 8.4.2011
3. Legality of the 1987 Allotment
4. Relevance of Iqbal Ahmad Case
5. Adequacy of Alternative Land Offer
6. Status of Land as Public Utility
7. Review of 1987 Order
8. Conduct of Sub-Divisional Officer
9. Power of Review by Settlement Officer Consolidation
10. Final Judgment and Costs

Summary:

1. Restoration of Petitioner's Land:
The matter was adjourned to allow the learned Standing Counsel to file affidavits on how the petitioner's land could be restored. The petitioner was dislodged from land validly allotted to him in exchange for his original holding u/s 19-A(2) read with Section 44-A of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. The land was originally taken for constructing a public road. The petitioner continued in possession until the respondents interfered, citing the land as pasture land. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition, which led to orders dated 6.4.2011 and 8.4.2011 being passed without notice, recalling the 1987 order.

2. Validity of Orders Dated 6.4.2011 and 8.4.2011:
The respondents admitted that the orders were passed without giving notice or opportunity to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court quashed these orders, noting they were issued after 23 years without proper justification.

3. Legality of the 1987 Allotment:
The court upheld the 1987 allotment, stating it was done in public interest and not for the petitioner's individual benefit. The exchange was made under the provisions of Section 19-A(2) and Section 44-A of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, and was legally sustainable.

4. Relevance of Iqbal Ahmad Case:
The court found that the Iqbal Ahmad case did not consider Section 19-A(2) and was not relevant to the present case. The decision in Ram Kumar was more applicable, supporting the legality of the 1987 allotment.

5. Adequacy of Alternative Land Offer:
The alternative land offered (Plot No. 293 M) was deemed inappropriate and not equivalent, as it was located half a kilometer away from the original land. The court found the offer insufficient to compensate the petitioner.

6. Status of Land as Public Utility:
The land allotted to the petitioner ceased to be public utility land once he surrendered his original holding for constructing a public road. The transaction was transparent and not collusive or fraudulent.

7. Review of 1987 Order:
The court noted that the Settlement Officer Consolidation reviewed the 1987 order without any allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. The review was deemed unjustified after 23 years.

8. Conduct of Sub-Divisional Officer:
The Sub-Divisional Officer's request to expunge the petitioner's name was found to be baseless and mischievous. The delay in addressing the issue was not justified, and the authorities' sudden action was seen as malicious.

9. Power of Review by Settlement Officer Consolidation:
The Settlement Officer Consolidation had no power to review the 1987 order after 23 years without notice to the petitioner. The review was based on half-baked legal advice and amounted to malice in law.

10. Final Judgment and Costs:
The writ petition was allowed, and the orders dated 6.4.2011 and 8.4.2011 were quashed. The petitioner was entitled to retain his land under the 1987 order. The respondents were restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession. Costs were imposed on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsildar, and Settlement Officer Consolidation, to be deducted from their salaries, with entries made in their service records.