Uttaranchal High Court: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., disposed of a petition filed against the order of the revisional authority.
The petitioner was a member of scheduled caste community and being a landless agricultural labourer he was given a land out of the surplus land of the State as per the provision contained in Section 122-B (4-F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he was given this benefit prior to 03-06-1995. Thereafter regarding the same village, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Consolidation officer had come to the conclusion that land had been allotted in favour of the petitioner being a member of the scheduled caste community and he was liable to be given the land accordingly he was given bhumidari rights with non-transferable rights on 31-10-2005. This order was challenged by an appeal by the residents of the village which was allowed by the appellate authority on grounds that neither the said persons nor the concerned Gram Sabha were heard. Thereafter, the matter was taken in revision by the petitioner but it was dismissed by the revisional authority, thus the instant petition.
The Court while disposing of the petition explained that the appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority, had rejected the claim of the petitioner with the opinion that principles of natural justice and fair play had not been adopted properly by the Consolidation Officer and thus remanded the matter back to the consolidation officer at the same time it needs to be kept in mind that there was a special provision created in favour of the members of the scheduled caste community under sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the Act and before passing any order this had to be kept in mind. [Randhir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 83, decided on 03-01-2020]
