Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had upheld the cancellation of land allotment to the appellants after 13 years. The appellants were allotted 150 sq. yards each in Gata No. 185 Mi in Rampur Kedhar Village, Uttar Pradesh in 1994 for residential purposes under Section 122-C(i)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. They constructed houses and resided there with their families. In 2007, the Lekhpal reported that the land was originally designated as Panchayat Ghar under Section 132 of the Act and the allotment was irregular. The Tehsildar proposed cancellation, and show cause notices were issued. The Additional Collector rejected the appellants' preliminary objection on limitation, holding that no limitation is prescribed under Section 122-C(6) for suo moto cancellation. The revision and writ petition were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that even where no limitation is prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its power within a reasonable period. Relying on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited and Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, the Court found that 13 years delay was unreasonable, especially since the allottees had constructed houses and were in possession, and no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged against them. The Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, directing that the allotments shall not be cancelled on the ground of limitation.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Cancellation of Allotment - Limitation - Suo Moto Power - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 122-C(6) - Whether the Collector can cancel an allotment at any time when no limitation is prescribed - Held that even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the power must be exercised within a reasonable period, which depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, initiation of proceedings after 13 years, during which allottees had constructed houses and were residing, was held to be unreasonable. (Paras 12-14) B) Land Law - Cancellation of Allotment - Reasonable Period - Factors - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 122-C(6) - Factors to determine reasonable period include nature of the statute, rights and liabilities, and conduct of parties - Held that 13 years delay in initiating cancellation proceedings, without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the allottees, was not reasonable. (Paras 12-14) C) Land Law - Allotment of Land - Legitimate Expectation - Allottees who have constructed houses and resided for 13 years have a legitimate expectation that their allotment will not be cancelled after such a long period, especially when no fraud is alleged against them. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suo moto power of the Collector under Section 122-C(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to cancel an allotment can be exercised at any time without any limitation, or must be exercised within a reasonable period.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, Additional Commissioner, and Additional Collector, and held that the cancellation proceedings initiated after 13 years were not within a reasonable period. The allotments in favour of the appellants shall not be cancelled on the ground of limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation for suo moto cancellation of allotment must be reasonable
- No limitation period prescribed does not mean power can be exercised at any time
- Reasonable period depends on facts and circumstances
- Allottees who have constructed houses and resided for 13 years have legitimate expectation
- Fraud or illegality must be established for delayed cancellation
