LexSMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430 Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others (Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2012) 16 May 2024 [C. T. Ravikumar and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Subject land was designated as a Panchayat Ghar however, later it was re-assigned for residential use and allotments were made to allottees including appellants (writ petitioners in High Court) u/s.122-C, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Proceedings for cancellation of the allotments were initiated based on the report of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after 13 years from the date of allotment. Since, there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act, whether such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length of time or at any point of time where no limitation is prescribed. Whether any fraud was committed by the writ petitioners or was attributed to them under the show cause notices. Headnotes Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act – s.122-C(6) – Cancellation of allotment of land, no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings – Exercise of suo moto power by Collector, if can be at any time or such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time and if so, within what time: Held: This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue namely the exercise of suo moto power u/sub-section (4) of s.50-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 698, wherein it was held that suo moto power should be exercised within a reasonable period even in case of fraud and within a reasonable time from the date of discovery of fraud and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Further, in sub-section (4) of s.50-B, AP Act, the expression “the collector may, suo moto at any time;” is occurring while such expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of s.122-(C) of UPZALR 288 [2024] 6 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Act – Furthermore, the report or the communication of the Lekhpal forwarded to the Tehsildar does not even suggest or indicate any fraud having occurred or alleged against writ petitioners – However, the Tehsildar in the report submitted to the District Magistrate, on the basis of certain presumed irregularities concluded that allotment was irregular and approval of allotment was on the basis of forged signature of Sub-District Magistrate – Although, the basis of such conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having been forged was not specified – No allegation of whatsoever nature was attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s – In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fraud was attributed to the writ petitioners in show cause notices – Impugned order of the High Court; the order passed by the Additional Collector which held that proceedings for cancellation could be started at any time as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Administration) Moradabad Division are unsustainable and set aside. [Paras 13, 15-17, 19] Case Law Cited Additional Commssioner, Revenue and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another [2020] 2 SCR 1001 : (2020) 4 SCC 507; State of Punjab v. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited [2007] 11 SCR 14 : (2007) 11 SCC 363; Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 698 : (2003) 7 SCC 667 – relied on. List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. List of Keywords Cancellation of allotment of land; Panchayat ghar; Period of limitation not prescribed; Fraud; Exercise of suo moto power; Within reasonable time/period; Discovery of fraud; Forged signature; Show cause notices. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 1995 of 2010 [2024] 6 S.C.R. 289 Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others Appearances for Parties Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv. for the Appellants. Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak Mohan, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2010 passed in Writ Petiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.