Ram Gopal and Others vs The Land Management Committee and Another

B.L. Yadav, J.—By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that a writ of Mandamus may be issued to the Respondents not to lease out the land in the name of Gaon Sabha and not to deliver the possession to the lessee in pursuance of the lease granted.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that till the notification u/s 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of 5 Holdings Act (for short the Act) has been issued closing the consolidation operation, the land earmarked for extension of abadi including the area for abadi site for Harijan and landless persons would not be deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha or the land contributed by the tenure holder for the extension of abadi and other public purposes would also not vest in the Gaon Sabha. Section 29-C of the Act was also relied upon to the effect that the land contributed for public purpose by the tenure holder would also not vest in the Gaon Sabha till the notification u/s 52 of the Act has been issued. Hence only after the issuance of notification u/s 52 of the allotment of land which has vested in the Gaon Sabha may be allotted in favour of the prospective lessee and possession may be delivered to them only thereafter.

Learned Standing Counsel was also heard. As the facts are not disputed, hence no counter or rejoinder affidavit is required.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that u/s 8-A the Procedure is for preparation of statement of principles, which shall contain details of the area to be earmarked for extension of abadi including the area for abadi site for Harijan and landless persons in the unit and the basis on which the tenure holders will contribute land for extension of abadi and for other public purposes, the details of land to be embarked, for purposes out of land vested in the Gaon Samaj or Local Authority. In this way the intention of legislature u/s 8-A is clear and manifest. There is nothing to indicate that the legislature intended that the details of land earmarked for extension of abadi or abadi sites for Harijans would not vest in Gaon Sabha till the notification u/s 52 of the Act.

Similarly Section 29-C (2) provides that the land contributed for public purposes shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and shall be utilised for the purposes for which it was earmarked in the final consolidation scheme, or in case of failure of that purpose, for such other purpose as may be prescribed. Similarly under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 the provision is that in respect of the land contributed for public purposes the provisions of Section 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act shall apply and the same would have vested in Gaon Sabha by virtue of declaration made by the State Government.

It is thus obvious that the land contributed by the tenure holder for public purposes shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and it shall be utilised for the purposes for which it was earmarked and in case of failure of that purpose it shall be utilised for the purposes prescribed. I am of the opinion that if the land has vested in the Gaon Sabha in view of the Procedure u/s 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act and Section 8-A of the Act similar other provisions, there is no reason why not the land can be utilised, if so necessary, by making allotment to tenure holders in view of the Procedure u/s 198 (1) of the UP ZA and LR Act. Consequently it cannot be said that the land either contributed for public purposes or the land that has vested in the Gaon Sabha u/s 117 cannot be utilised nor the lease can be granted nor possession can be delivered to the lessees till the notification u/s 52 of the Act was issued.

In view of above, the present petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed summarily.