Vijay Singh and others vs State of U. P. and others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 contend that they are Schedule Caste and that the proceeding suo motu undertaken under sub-section (4) of Section 198 is impermissible inasmuch as earlier the proceeding which was initiated by a complainant had already been dropped against the petitioners.

The submission is that the land was sought to be transferred in favour of petitioner No. 3 after taking permission u/s 157AA and it is at that stage that suo motu proceedings have again been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revising authority has also not applied it''s mind in the revision tiled by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

The contention in short is that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner u/s 195 read with Section 198(4) was in accordance with law and after due approval of the appropriate authority. The contention, therefore, is that such an allotment without there being any infirmity or irregularity could not have been proceeded through a suo motu proceeding barred by time.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record what transpires is that the land in dispute was recorded as reserved for Harijan Abadi when the land came to be allotted to the petitioner. The aforesaid reservation in favour of Harijan Abadi is clearly for a public utility purpose and such a land could not have been subject-matter of allotment keeping in view the provisions of Section 132 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is in these circumstances that the suo motu proceedings have been initiated.

The Court has been unable to find out any error inasmuch as if the very basis of allotment is against the statutory provision then the limitation as complained of would not operate as a bar against the Collector in taking suo motu action.

The writ petition is dismissed.