HINCH LAL TIWARI versus KAMALA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 25-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
HINCH LAL TIWARI 
v. 
KAMALA DEVI AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 2001 
(SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/U.P. Zwnindari 
. Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1950. 
A 
B 
Ss. 117(/)(i), (vi) and 122C(l)/Rule 115-P-Allotment of/and/or housing C 
site to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes etc.-Pond area allotted to 
respondents-Objection to-Additional Collector as also Commissioner 
cancelled allotment-High Court in writ petition confirming allotment in respect 
of part of pond area-Held, subject matter of allotment of house sites is lands 
referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (I) and not tanks, ponds, etc. referred D 
to in clause (vi) of sub-section (I) of S. 117-0rder of High Court cannot be 
sustained-There is concurrent finding that area covered by the pond varies 
in rainy season-No part of it could have been allotted to respondents-
Respondents shall vacate the land. 
Ecology-Pond belonging to Gram Sabha-Allotment of pond area to E 
members of Scheduled Caste for house site-Held, material resources of 
community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. maintain delicate 
ecological balance they need to be protected for a proper and healthy 
environment-Government having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, 
should have bestowed their attention to develop the same-State would restore F 
the pond, develop and maintain it. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4787 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2000 of the Allahabad G 
High Court in C.M.P. No. 26572 of 1999. 
·Ranjit Kumar, Pramod Swarup, B.M. Sharma, H.L. Srivastava, C.M. 
Patel and T.N. Singh for the Appellant. 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Kamlendra Misra, R.C. Verma, Asho!< Sharma and 
23 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A D.K. Garg for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave is granted. 
B 
This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad allowing in part Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26572 
of 1999, filed by respondents I to I 0, on August 16, 2000. 
The dispute relates to plot No. 774-KA measuring 15 biswas situated 
m village Ugapur, Talluka Asnao, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (U.P.) 
C (hereinafter referred to as pond). It appears that proceeding was initiated by 
Lekhpal of the village to allot plots of land to an extent of 15 biswas of the 
pond area on August 11, 1988. The S.D.O. allotted 250 sq. yards to each of 
respondents I to I 0 who are said to belong to one family. Seventeen persons 
of that village objected to the said allotment under Rule 115-P of the U.P. 
D Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules (for short, 'the Rules'). The 
Additional Collector called for a report from the Tehsildar on their objections 
but the matter seems to have rested there as the objectors withdrew their 
objections. At that stage the appellant filed an application praying the 
Additional Collector to cancel the allotment of land in favour of respondents 
I to I 0. On February 25, 1999 the Additional Collector cancelled the allotment 
E in question made in their favour. They carried the matter unsuccessfully in 
revision before the Commissioner who by order dated March 12, 1999 
dismissed the revision. Challenging the correctness of the order of the 
Divisional Commissioner the said respondents filed Writ Petition No. 26572 
of 1999 in the High Court oJ Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned order 
the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition of confirming the allotment 
F in respect of IO biswas and cancelling in respect of 5 biswas, which led to 
filing of this appeal. 
Mr. Ranj it Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the appellant 
vehemently contends that the power of allotment of the land is available in 
G respect of abadi site and not in respect of a pond which is a public utility and 
meant for public use; that no part of it could have been allotted in favour of 
any person, much less in favour of respondents I to I 0 who do not fall in 
the specified categories of the beneficiaries under the Rules. He invited our 
attention to Section I 22C( I) which specifies the classes of land which can be 
earmarked for the provisions of abadi sites and pointed out that pond (Talab) 
H area is not among them. 
-
•
-
--
H.L. TIW ARI v. KAMALA DEVI 
25 
Mr. Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the official A 
respondents argued that having regard to the provisions of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.