/2023 INSC 0086/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2627­2628 OF 2012
KAMAL AND OTHERS ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GAJRAJ AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2604­2605 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6486­6487 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The   instant   appeals   are   directed   against   the   judgment   dated
12 th
  August,   2010   followed   with   the   Order   dismissing   the   review
petition dated 12 th
 October, 2011.
2. The brief facts of the case which manifest from the record are
that   the   present   appellants   are   the   applicants   to   whom   land   was
1

allotted   after   going   through   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the
Uttar   Pradesh   Zamindari   Abolition   and   Land   Reforms   Act,
1950(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   “the   Act”)   on   the
recommendations   made   by   the   Land   Management   Committee   of
Village   Phaleda   in   its   meeting   held   on   20 th
  July,   1996.     The
allotment   was   finally   confirmed   by   the   Sub­Divisional   Magistrate,
Khurja   vide   its   acceptance   dated   6 th
  April,   1997   which   came   to   be
affirmed on the dismissal of a revision petition filed at the instance
of one of the complainants, who although had no locus standi and
was   not   an   allottee   by   the   Additional   Commissioner,   Meerut
Division,  Meerut in exercise of power  under  Section 333 of the Act
by order dated 31 st
 March, 2008.
3. That   order   of   the   Additional   Commissioner,   Meerut   Division,
Meerut   came   to   be   set   aside   by   the   High   Court   on   a   writ   petition
filed by a stranger to the proceedings, Gajraj, who was the original
complainant,   questioning   the   allotment   made   to   the   appellants   on
the premise that under Rule 176(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition   and   Land   Reforms   Rules,   1952(hereinafter   being   referred
to   as   “the   Rules”),   the   decision   was   to   be   taken   by   the   competent
2

authority on the recommendations made by the Land Management
Committee   within   one   week   of   its   receipt   from   the   Chairman   and
eight months had been consumed by the authority for granting final
approval which was in violation of Rule 176(4) of the Rules.  
4. Accordingly,   while   setting   aside   the   order   of   the   Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 31 st
 March 2008, and
the   Additional  Collector(Finance   &  Revenue)  dated  30 th
  September,
2006,   the   High   Court  remitted  the  matter   back  to   the   authority   to
examine   the   same   afresh   in   accordance   with   law   by   Order   dated
12 th
 August, 2010 which is the subject matter in appeals before us.
5. The relevant extract of the allotments of piece of land made on
the   recommendations   of   the   Land   Management   Committee   of
Village Phaleda in its meeting held on 20 th
 July, 1996 is as under:­
…….Upon hearing the details of the above land, the Land
Management   Committee   has   also   decided,   to   the   effect
that,   those   persons   who   will   avail   allotment   in   Village
Phaleda   Bangar,   will   be   allotted   land   area,   admeasuring
0.506   hectares,   while   those   who   avail   allotments   in
Village   Sultanpur   Phaleda   Bangar,   will   be   accordingly
allotted land area, admeasuring 0.253 hectares. Then the
Lekhpal,   has   been   asked,   to   the   effect   that,   he   ought   to
accordingly   affect   allotments   of   lands   standing
mentioned, in the contents of the concerned list of eligible
candidates, which as a matter of fact, has been prepared
by   the   Village   Pradhan   and   members   of   the   Land
Management   Committee.   This   list   of   all   eligible   persons,
has   been   read­over,   before   this   Land   Management
3

Committee,   whereupon   some   deliberation   has   taken
place   in   the   said   behalf   and   finally   it   had   been   passed,
through  consensus   voice,   with  this  observation   that,   the
said   list   has   been   duly   prepared,   in   a   true   and   correct
manner,   because   members   belonging   to   the   Schedule
Caste, remaining in possession  of agricultural land area,
admeasuring   less   than   3 1/8
  acres,   are   also   included,   in
the  said list.  Agricultural allotments,  have  been  affected,
in the following manner:­
S.No
. Name,   Parentage
and   address   of
allottee    Caste  Khasra
No. Area in 
Hectares Land 
revenue 
in Rs. Details
    1                  2                    3               4             5                6              7
1. Mahendra, son 
of Sohan Singh, 
resident of the 
village Jatav 39/6 0.253 12.50
… … … … … … …
110 Shankar, son of 
Harchandi, 
resident of the 
village Brahmin 324/1
5 0.506 12.50
The   contents   of   the   aforesaid   agricultural   allotment   have
been   read­over   to   the   members   of   the   Land   Management
Committee   as   well   as   the   public   at   large   and   then   a   dispute   has
arisen   in   between   the   members   of   the   Land   Management
Committee and the general public. Thereafter it has been decided,
to   the   effect   that,   the   resolution   had   been   correctly   moved   and   is
true   in   nature.   All   members   present   have   accordingly   supported
the   above   resolution   and   resultantly   the   same   has   been   adopted
and   passed.   Then   Village   Pradhan   Smt.   Vimlesh   had   directed   the
Lekhpal  to  accordingly  prepare  the  requisite  file  pertaining   to this
resolution   and   the   said   file   be   analogously   forwarded   to   the   Sub­
Divisional   Magistrate   Khurja   for   the   purposes   of   seeking   and
obtaining his concurrence and approval of this adopted and passed
resolution.   This   matter   ought   to   be   tabled   for   confirmation   in   the
next meeting of the Land Management Committee. Thus the above
resolution has been happily adopted and passed. 
4

6. The relevant part of the proposal for allotment in favour of 110
persons which was finally approved by the competent authority and
that reveals from the minutes of the meeting held on 6 th
  April 1997
is as follows:­
The Sub­Divisional Magistrate, Khurja.
Sir,
I   have   perused   the   annexed   file   pertaining   to   allotments
having   been   since   affected   in   Village   Phaleda.   In   the   contents   of
the   same,   allotments   had   since   been   affected   in   favour   of   110
persons out of whom 7 individuals belong to the Schedule Caste, 3
belong to the Backward Classes, while the remaining are belonging
to   the   general   category.   From   the   photostat   copy   of   allotment
proceedings remaining annexed in the contents of the said file, it is
amply clear, to the effect that, out of 166 persons belonging to the
Schedule Caste in the village since previously, none of them being
eligible   remains   to   be   accordingly   allotted   land   in   their   favour.   In
connection with the legality of the eligibility­list, resolution, agenda
and   Munadi   [open   declaration   by   beating   of   drums]   the   area
Revenue Inspector and the area Lekhpal had accordingly recorded
their   separate   and   distinct   reports   herein   upon   conducting   due
and   proper   enquiries   in   the   said   behalf,   in   this   matter.   They   had
also  recorded  the  statements  of  various  individuals. The  proposed
land to be given away in allotments stands recorded as that being
Naveen   Parti   and   barren   in   the   contents   of   category   5(1)   and   5(3)
thereof, while it is stated that the same stands independent of any
dispute whatsoever at the spot. Thus in this manner, on the basis
of   the   report   of   the   Revenue   Inspector   and   Lekhpal,
recommendation   is   hereby   submitted   for   approving   the   said
allotment proposal.”
5

7. The   allotment   made   by   the   competent   authority   came   to   be
challenged in a Suit No. 12 of 2004 under Section 198(4) of the Act
and after appraisal of record that was dismissed by an Order dated
30 th
  September,   2006   by   Additional   Collector(Finance   &   Revenue),
Gautam   Budh   Nagar   and   further   revision   came   to   be   preferred
under   Section   333   of   the   Act   was   dismissed   by   Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by Order dated 31 st
  March,
2008.  
8. That became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of
the   complainant   Gajraj   who   was   completely   a   stranger   having   no
locus  standi   in  reference  to   the  allotments  made  by  filing   of  a  writ
petition   before   the   High   Court   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the
Constitution of India.
9. Learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court,   although   has   not
travelled to the facts of the case and has not bothered to examine as
to whether there is an error in the decision­making process adopted
by   the   authorities   while   making   allotment   of   land   to   the   landless
persons   after   it   was   examined   at   two   stages   by   the   Additional
Collector(Finance & Revenue) and Additional Commissioner, Meerut
6

Division,   Meerut   under   its   orders   dated   30 th
  September   2006   and
31 st
 March, 2008 and proceeded on the premise that the competent
authority   has   to   take   a   call   to   grant   approval   to   the   Resolution
passed   by   the   Committee   within   one   week   of   its   receipt   from   the
Chairman   and   it   took   eight   months’   time   to   grant   approval   to   the
recommendations made by the Land Management Committee which
was   in   violation   of   Rule   176(4)   of   the   Rules   and   accordingly   by
judgment   dated   12 th
  August,   2010   remitted   the   matter   to   the
authority   to   be   decided   afresh.     Later   review   also   came   to   be
dismissed by an Order dated 12 th
 October, 2011.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no error was
pointed   out   in   the   decision­making   process   adopted   by   the   State
authorities   in   making   allotment   of   piece   of   land   and   so   far   as   the
delay   which   has   been   caused   by   the   competent   authority   in
granting   approval   is   concerned,   it   is   not   within   the   domain   of   the
appellants,   as   such,   they   cannot   be   saddled   with   heavy   costs   for
which they were never at fault and it cannot be attributed to them.  
11. At   the   same   time,   Rule   176(4)   indeed   indicates   that   the
decision   has   to   be   taken   by   the   competent   authority   on   the
7

recommendations   of   the   Land   Management   Committee   within   a
week of its receipt but its non­compliance would not invalidate the
proceedings  and it  does not contain  any   consequential  effect  if the
authority   fails   to   exercise   its   power   within   time­frame   of   one   week
as   stipulated   under   Rule   176(4).     In   the   given   circumstances,   the
Order passed by the High Court is legally unsustainable in law and
passing   the   order   to   remit   the   matter   back   to   the   authority   even
otherwise is not going   to  overcome the  delay   which  was caused by
the   competent   authority   in   granting   approval   to   the
recommendations made by the Land Management Committee.
12. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   allotment   made   on
the recommendations of the Land Management Committee has been
examined   at   two   stages,   first,   in   a   suit   filed   before   the   Additional
Collector   under   Section   198(4)   of   the   Act   and   no   error/fault   was
pointed   out   in   the   decision­making   process   by   the   authority   in
making   allotment   of   the   piece   of   land   to   the   present   appellants.
That   came   to   be   further   examined   in   the   revisional   jurisdiction   by
the   Additional   Commissioner   in   exercise   of   its   jurisdiction   under
Section   333   of   the   Act   and   after   the   matter   has   been   examined   at
8

different   levels,   no   fault   in   the   decision­making   process   has   been
pointed out and merely because the competent authority has failed
to   exercise   its   power   within   the   period   of   one   week   as   referred   to
under  Rule 176(4), that in itself will not invalidate the proceedings
and   the   Order   passed   by   the   High   Court   deserves   to   be   interfered
with by this Court.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that it is true
that there was delay caused by the competent authority in granting
approval   to   the   recommendations   made   by   the   Land   Management
Committee but in  the absence  of  there being  any  fault pointed out
or error being committed in the decision­making process in making
allotment   of   piece   of   land   to   the   individual   applicants   who   are
almost   110   in   all,   it   is   otherwise   not   in   the   interest   of   justice   in
remitting the matter back to the authority and nothing is left for the
authority to now examine at this stage when allotment made on the
recommendations   made   by   the   Land   Management   Committee   has
been looked into at two different stages by the respective competent
authorities.     To   invalidate   the   proceedings   in   the   absence   of   any
statutory bar would not be in the interest of justice.
9

14. No one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 Gajraj who was
the   original   petitioner   and   from   the   record   it   reveals   that   he   was
neither in the list of allottees nor was an applicant for consideration
of allotment.   Regardless of the fate of the allotment of the present
appellants, at least respondent no. 1 Gajraj­the original petitioner is
not   going   to   lose   but   can   defeat   the   rights   of   persons   to   whom
allotment   has   been   made   on   the   recommendations   made   by   the
Land   Management   Committee   after   due   process   as   contemplated
under the scheme.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
16. Before we proceed to examine the matter any further, it will be
apposite to take note of Rule 176 which is referred to as under:­
“176(1)   After   selecting   the   person   or   persons   for   admission   to   the
land in accordance with Rule 175, the Committee shall prepare­
(a) a list of persons so selected in Z.A. Form 57­B;
(b) a certificate of admission to land in Z.A. Form 58; and
(c) a counterpart in Z.A. Form 58­A.
(2) The documents referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub­rule (1)
shall   be   duly   signed   by   the   Chairman   of   the   Land   Management
Committee   but   the   document   referred   to   in   clause   (c)   shall   be
signed by the person so selected for admission to the land.
10

(3)   The   document   referred   to   in   sub­rule   (1)   shall   then   be
forwarded   to  the   Assistant   Collector­in­charge  of   the   Sub­Division
alongwith­
(a)   a   copy   of   the   proceedings   of   the   meeting   of   the
Committee   in   which   the   decision   to   settle   land   was
taken; and
(b) a certificate from  the Lekhpal concerned to the effect
that the particulars of the land mentioned in the list are
correct   and   that   the   admission   to   the   land   is   in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
(4)   The   Assistant   Collector   in­charge  of  the  Sub­Division   shall,  on
receipt of the documents referred to in sub­rule (3); scrutinize the
decision   taken   by   the   Committee   and   if   he   is   satisfied   that   the
decision   of   the   Committee   is   in   accordance   with   the   Act   and   the
rules made thereunder, he shall record his approval on the list in
Z.A.   Form   57­B   and   return   the   papers   to   the   Land   Management
Committee within a week of its receipt from the Chairman with the
direction   that   the   possession   may   be   delivered   to   the   lessees   and
the report of the mutation be submitted to the Supervisor Kanungo
by the lekhpal immediately after delivery of possession.
(5)   If   the   Assistant   Collector   in­charge   of   the   Sub­Division   finds
that   the   whole   or   part   of   the   decision   taken   by   the   Committee   is
not   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   Rules,   he
shall   record   his   disapproval   on   the   list   in   Z.A.   Form   57­B   and
return the papers to the Chairman.”
17. If   we   look   into   the   scheme   of   Rule   176,   it   provides   the
procedure   to   be   followed   by   the   applicants   who   are   entitled   for
allotment of land.   Under sub­rule (1), a list of persons so selected
have   to   fill   their   respective   Form   57­B,   Form   58   and   Form   58­A.
Sub­rule(2)   refers   to   the   documents   which   are   required   to   be
furnished   by   the   individual   applicant   for   the   purpose   of   seeking
allotment.   Under sub­rule(3), such of the documents referred to in
11

sub­rule(1)   have   to   be   scrutinized   and   the   decision   taken   by   the
Committee  has  to be examined  by   the Assistant  Collector  who  has
to record its satisfaction whether the decision of the Committee is in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   the   rules   made
thereunder and after recording his approval, further action is to be
taken for allotment.   If the decision taken by the Committee is not
in accordance with the Act, the Assistant Collector is empowered to
record its disapproval and return the papers to the Chairman.
18. The reference which has been made by the Assistant Collector
under sub­rule (4) to grant appropriate approval within a week of its
receipt appears to be introduced with an object to decide the matter
in a time bound manner so that those persons who are landless or
in   whose   favour   the   recommendations   have   been   made   after   going
through the process under provisions of the Act or the Rules framed
thereunder,   may   not   be   deprived   of   the   legitimate   right   which   has
been conferred upon them and the duty has been casted upon the
authority   to   decide   as   expeditiously   as   possible,   within   one   week
stipulated thereunder, but if there is a delay either for Ministerial or
administrative   reasons,   at   least   it   cannot   be   attributed   to   the
12

allottee applicants.   At the same time, if the authority has failed to
exercise its power within the stipulated time of one week as referred
to under Rule 176(4) of the Rules, at least it is inconsequential and
will not invalidate the proceedings.
19. It is to be noticed that the recommendations made by the Land
Management   Committee   after   the   approval   being   granted   by   the
Assistant   Collector   have   been   examined   by   different   authorities   in
exercise of power under Section 198(4) of the Act and later under its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 333 of the Act and even before
this   Court,   the   respondents   are   unable   to   show   that   there   is   any
error   or   illegality   being   committed   in   the   decision­making   process
while the allotments were made in favour of the appellants allottees
on   the   recommendations   made   by   the   Land   Management
Committee.     In   absence   thereof,   the   authority   competent,   if   has
failed to exercise its power vested under Rule 176(4) within the time
prescribed which is not within the ambit and control of the allottee
applicants, at least they cannot be saddled with heavy costs for the
inaction of the authorities in exercise of the power vested in it.   In
the   absence   of   any   provision   to   invalidate   such   proceedings,   it   is
13

inconsequential   and   there   was   no   reason/justification   to   set   aside
those allotments made.
20. In   our   view,   the   High   Court   has   not   examined   the   matter   in
this perspective.  At the same time, if the action has not been taken
by the authority within one week as referred to under Rule 176(4),
there is no consequential effect of its non­compliance.   In the given
circumstances,   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   serious   error   in
interpreting   Rule   176(4)   in   the   right   perspective,   and   at   the   same
time, setting aside the proceedings and remitting the matter back to
the authority without any reason or justification.  More so, no error
has   been   pointed   out   in   the   decision­making   process   adopted   by
the authorities under the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed
thereunder.
21. Consequently,   the   appeals   deserve   to   succeed   and   are
accordingly   allowed.     The   judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   12 th
August,   2010   and   the   review   order   dated   12 th
  October,   2011   are
hereby set aside.  No costs.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
14

…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
 
15