SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                  [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
* Author
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 Petition No.1995 of 2010 by the High Court of judicature at
     Allahabad whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein
     (hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioners or petitioners’) challenging
     the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Revision No.68 of 2008-09 came
     to be dismissed and said order came to be upheld for the reason
     that the revision petition is not maintainable and consequently the
     order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector holding
     that proceedings for cancellation of the patta could be started at any
     time came to be upheld.
2.   By our order dated 13.03.2024, we had made it clear that since none
     had appeared on behalf of the appellants (writ petitioners) no further
     adjournment would be granted and in the interest of justice one last
     opportunity came to be extended to the writ petitioners. However,
     even today when the matter is called in the second round none has
     appeared on behalf of the appellants. Hence, we have proceeded
     to examine the case on merits by considering the pleas advanced
     in the appeal, grounds urged therein and the arguments advanced
     on behalf of the respondents’ counsel.
3.   Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
4.   In the year 1969-70, the khasra plot No.185 in Rampur Kedhar Village,
     UP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared
     unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion
     of the said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant
     Collector and subsequently different plots of land in said survey number
     came to be allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners
     under Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
     Land Reforms Act (hereafter referred to as ‘UPZALR Act’ for short).
290                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


5.     After 13 years, the Secretary/Lekhpal of Bhumi Prabandhank
       Samiti, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar
       opining thereunder that plot No.185 had been originally designated
       as Panchayat Ghar and classified under Section 132 of UPZALR
       Act and accordingly recorded in the revenue records, which had
       been unlawfully allotted for residential use. Hence, he proposed for
       cancellation of the allotments made and to take possession of the
       land from all the allottees including writ petitioners. The Tehsildar in
       turn forwarded a proposal to the District Magistrate for cancellation
       of the allotment vide communication dated 18.06.2007. This, resulted
       in show cause notices dated 05.07.2007 being issued to the writ
       petitioners and same was duly replied by them by filing objections
       on 04.10.2007. An application came to be filed by the petitioners
       to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, since the
       proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment
       contending inter alia that within a period of 3 years the proceedings
       ought to have been initiated. The Additional Collector by order dated
       07.02.2008 was of the view that action initiated being suo moto, no
       limitation has been provided under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act;
       that during the consolidation proceedings the land had been specified
       “Panchayat Ghar” and it was covered under Section 132(6) of the
       UPZALR Act; the allotment of land being irregular and no time limit
       having been fixed for cancellation of allotment made under Section
       122-C(6). Hence, he arrived at a conclusion that there is no limitation
       fixed under the Act and proceeded to reject the application filed.
6.     Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petition came to be
       filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be entertained
       on merits and dismissed.
7.     Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two (2) orders, the writ petitioners
       challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 which came to
       be dismissed on two grounds namely the revision petition filed was
       not maintainable in the teeth of Section 122-C(7); and, on the ground
       that impugned order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional
       Collector over-ruling the objections of the writ petitioners with regard
       to limitation is correct and it was meritless. Hence, this appeal.
8.     As already noticed by us herein above, none have appeared on
       behalf of the writ petitioners. Shri Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel
       appearing for the respondent-state has vehemently contended
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          291

                    Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.
               State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others

     that fraud vitiates all acts and in the instant case the revenue was
     empowered under the UPZALR Act to cancel the illegal and fraudulent
     allotment of land made in favour of the writ petitioners and as such
     suit had been instituted for cancellation of allotment for which no
     limitation has been specified under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR
     Act and particularly when the land in question had been reserved
     as Panchayat Ghar it would be governed under Section 132 of the
     UPZALR Act. He would also submit that even otherwise where a
     bhumidhar uses the land for a purpose not connected with agriculture,
     horticulture or animal husbandry same would be in contravention of
     Section 143 and admittedly no permission had been procured for the
     usage of the land for residential purposes as required under Section
     143. Hence, he would contend that the authorities were within their
     jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for cancelling the allotment and
     the revenue authorities as well as the High Court had rightly refused to
     interfere with the impugned order dated 07.02.2008 and rejected the
     writ petition whereunder they had sought for the suit being dismissed
     as barred by limitation. Hence, he prays for rejection of this appeal.
9.   Having heard the learned Counsel representing the State, it would
     be apposite to note the order dated 17.07.2012 passed by this
     Court. It reads:
           “Leave granted.
           In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain
           status quo in respect of the disputed land, as it is
           obtaining today. This would necessarily mean that neither
           party shall change the present character of the property
           or alienate the same to any other person in any manner
           whatsoever.”
                          (Emphasis Supplied by us)
10. The writ petitioners who are rustic and illiterate villagers had
    submitted applications for allotment of land for purposes of house
    construction in the village Dhodhar, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District
    Moradabad. Pursuant to the same the writ petitioner’s husband/
    father amongst others were allotted 150 sq. yards land each in
    Gata No. 185 Mi. The said allotment came to be approved by the
    Sub-District Magistrate on 27.06.1994 and allotment was made
    in pursuance to the proposal dated 15.05.1994 forwarded by The
292                                                         [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Land Management Committee, Rampur, Dhodhar. Hence, the writ
       petitioners and other allottees have put up construction by putting
       up residential accommodation and have been residing therein with
       their family members. However, after a period of 13 years namely on
       13.06.2007 the Lekhpal submitted a report for cancellation of such
       allotment on the ground that the land allotted to the writ petitioners
       and other allottees were classified as Panchayat Ghar and as
       per Section 132 of UPZALR Act the same could not have been
       allotted to the writ petitioners. Based on the said report, Tehsildar,
       on 18.06.2007 forwarded a report to the Sub-District Magistrate,
       proposing thereunder to initiate proceedings and recommended for
       cancellation of the allotment. Hence, the proceedings for cancellation
       of the allotment came to be initiated by issuance of show cause
       notice dated 05.07.2007 to all the allottees.
11. Thus, it emerges from the afore-stated facts that the authorities
    initiated the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment initially
    based on the report dated 13.06.2007 of the Lekhpal which was
    undisputedly after 13 years from the date of allotment. It is no doubt
    true that there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings
    under the UPZALR Act as contended by the learned Counsel for the
    Respondents. This Court in Additional Commssioner, Revenue
    and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 SCC 507
    vide paragraph 28 has held that sub-section (6) of Section 122C
    empowers the collector to enquire with regard to the manner of
    allotment being irregular and may proceed to cancel the allotment
    if he satisfies that such allotment is irregular. Section 122C (6)
    reads as under:
            “122C (6) The Collector may of his own motion and
            shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an
            allotment of land under this section inquire in the manner
            prescribed into such allotment, and if he is satisfied that
            the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment, and
            thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and
            of every other person claiming through him in the land
            allotted shall cease.”
12. However, the question which requires to be addressed is whether
    such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length of time or
    at any point of time where no limitation is prescribed. This Court
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                            293

                    Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.
               State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others

     in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited
     reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 has held:
           “18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been
           prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction
           within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the
           reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the
           statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant
           factors.”
13. This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue in the
    matter of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham
    v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667 namely the exercise of
    suo moto power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of Andhra
    Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act,
    1950 (for short ‘AP Act’) i.e., can it be at any time or such power
    is to be exercised within a reasonable time and if so, within what
    time? The facts obtained in the said case was that the owners of
    the subtle land executed various sale deeds in favour of different
    persons on plain paper and possession of the lands was also
    delivered to the purchasers. The vendees applied under Section
    50-B of the AP Act for validation of sales and the concerned
    Tehsildar issued validation certificates on various dates. The said
    orders of the Tehsildar came to be challenged before the Joint
    Collector of the District by the Special Tehsildar and authorised
    officer (land reforms) which appeals came to be dismissed in
    1988. It is thereafter the Joint Collector issued show cause notices
    purporting to exercise the suo moto power under sub-section (4)
    of Section 50-B of the Act to both the vendors and the vendees as
    to why the validation certificates issued in the year 1974 or earlier
    should not be cancelled after considering the objections filed in
    response to the show cause notices, the Joint Collector set aside
    the validation certificates in 1989. The learned Single Judge before
    whom challenge was laid accepted the plea of the writ petitioners
    by arriving at a conclusion that suo moto power of revision ought
    to have been exercised within a reasonable period, though Section
    50-B (4) of the Act empowers the authority to exercise such suo
    moto power at any time. The impleading applicants who had filed
    the complaint, assailed the order of learned Single Judge before
    the Division Bench without success. In so far as the validation
    certificates which were found to be fraught with fraud came to be
294                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       set aside by the Division Bench and also taking into account that
       the parties did not produce the documents.
14.     Sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the AP Act can be juxtaposition
       with sub-section (6) of Section 122-C of the UPZALR Act for immediate
       reference and it reads:

              Section 122-C (6)                    Section 50-B (4)
               of UPZALR Act                          of AP Act

       122-C (6) The Collector may          50-B (4) The Collector may,
       of his own motion and shall on       suo-motu at any time, call
       the application of any person        for and examine the record
       aggrieved by an allotment of         relating to any certificate issued
       land under this section inquire in   or proceedings taken by the
       the manner prescribed into such      Tahsildar under this section for
       allotment, and if he is satisfied    the purpose of satisfying himself
       that the allotment is irregular,     as to the legality or propriety
       he may cancel the allotment,         of such certificate or as to the
       and thereupon the right, title       regularity of such proceedings
       and interest of the allottee and     and pass such order in relation
       of every other person claiming       thereto as he may think fit:
       through him in the land allotted     Provided that no order adversely
       shall cease.                         affecting any person shall be
                                            passed under this sub-section
                                            unless such person has had
                                            an opportunity of making his
                                            representation thereto.
15. In Ibrahimpatnam’s case (supra) wherein sub-section (4) of Section
    50-B was pressed into service discloses that the expression ‘the
    collector may, suo moto at any time; is occurring while such
    expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of Section
    122-(C) of UPZALR Act. In the aforesaid case, it came to be held
    by the Apex Court 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. It came to be further held:
            “12. The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied
            on various decisions including the decisions of this Court
            as to how the use of the words “at any time” in sub-section
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                             295

                    Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.
               State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others

           (4) of Section 50-B of the Act should be understood. In
           the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court
           approves and affirms the decision of the learned Single
           Judge. Where a statute provides any suo motu power of
           revision without prescribing any period of limitation, the
           power must be exercised within a reasonable time and
           what is “reasonable time” has to be determined on the
           facts of each case.
           13. In the light of what is stated above, we are of the
           view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right
           in affirming the view of the learned Single Judge of the
           High Court that the suo motu power under sub-section
           (4) of Section 50-B of the Act is to be exercised within a
           reasonable time.
           19. It is also necessary to note that the suo motu power
           was sought to be exercised by the Joint Collector after
           13-15 years. Section 50-B was amended in the year
           1979 by adding sub-section (4), but no action was taken
           to invalidate the certificates in exercise of the suo motu
           power till 1989. There is no convincing explanation as to
           why the authorities waited for such a long time. It appears
           that sub-section (4) was added so as to take action where
           alienations or transfers were made to defeat the provisions
           of the Land Ceiling Act. The Land Ceiling Act having come
           into force on 1-1-1975, the authorities should have made
           inquiries and efforts so as to exercise the suo motu power
           within reasonable time. The action of the Joint Collector
           in exercising suo motu power after several years and not
           within reasonable period and passing orders cancelling
           validation certificates given by the Tahsildar, as rightly held
           by the High Court, could not be sustained.”
     In the teeth of the expression ‘any time’ not being found in sub-
     section (6) of Section 122-C, it would not detain us for too long to
     set aside the impugned orders.
16. However, in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the issue of fraud
    would arise in the instant case? And if so, whether such foundational
    facts had been laid in the proceedings initiated? Or such fraud, if
    any, has been committed by the writ petitioners or attributed to
296                                                          [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       them under the show cause notices has also been examined. The
       foundational facts narrated herein above, at the cost of repetition
       requires to be noticed namely the report or the communication of
       the Lekhpal dated 13.06.2007 forwarded to the Tehsildar. Perusal
       of the same does not even suggest or indicate of such fraud having
       occurred or alleged against writ petitioners. However, in the report
       dated 18.06.2007 submitted by the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate,
       it has been stated therein that subject land had been preserved for
       Panchayat Ghar and it is based on the information furnished by the
       peshkar working in the office Sub-District Magistrate who is said to
       have intimated that the file does not bear the signature of the then
       Sub-District Magistrate and the Tehsildar is also said to have found
       certain irregularities. In other words, on the basis of such presumed
       irregularities he has jumped to the conclusion that allotment was
       irregular, against law and approval of allotment was on the basis of
       forged signature of Sub-District Magistrate. However, the basis of such
       conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having
       been forged is not specified or in other words report is silent. It is
       also interesting to note that no allegation of whatsoever nature has
       been attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s.
       In this background, we are of the considered view that the principles
       enunciated by this Court in Ibrahimpatnam’s case (supra) would
       be squarely applicable to the facts on hand and as such the order
       impugned herein cannot be sustained.
17. We also make it clear that though the power of the Collector is
    available to initiate suo moto action for cancellation of allotment
    under sub-section (6) of Section 122-C in case of fraud and such
    foundational facts would disclose the same, it would suffice to initiate
    the proceedings as fraud vitiates all proceedings as held in Akhalaq
    Hussain’s case referred to supra. By making this position of law
    explicitly clear and in the facts and circumstances of the present
    case as unfolded which is discussed in detail herein above disclosing
    same not being laid in show cause notices, we are of the considered
    view that impugned order as well as the orders impugned before the
    writ court would not be sustainable.
18. Yet another factor which has swayed in our mind to quash the
    impugned order is the fact that pursuant to the allotment made
    on 27.06.1994 the allottees who are poor rustic villagers have
    constructed their houses and the allotment was made based on the
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                      297

                    Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others v.
               State of U.P. Through Secretary and Others

     approval granted by the then Sub-District Magistrate and they have
     been residing in the residential buildings so constructed by them
     for the last several years and to unsettle the same would result in
     heaping injustice to those poor hapless persons and particularly
     when the subject land has been utilized for allotment to the poor
     and houseless persons.
19. For the cumulative reasons afore-stated, appeal is allowed and
    the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 as well as the order dated
    07.02.2008, passed by Additional Collector- respondent No.3
    herein and the order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Additional
    Commissioner, (Administration) Moradabad Division are hereby set
    aside subject to observation made herein above. No order as to costs.


     Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey               Result of the case:
                                                          Appeal allowed.