Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004836 of 2007 Petitioner :- Ram Sajan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- D.P.Singh,Poorendu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.N.Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Poorendu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Hardoi and order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division passed in review and order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 in respect of Gata No.273, area measuring 0.215 hectare, situated in Gram Naya Gaon Mubarakpur, Tehsil Sandilar, District Hardoi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original petitioner, namely, Ram Sajan (who died during the pendency of the instant writ petition and is now survived by his legal heirs who has been brought on record) was a landless labourer belonging to schedule caste and was complying with the requirements of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and was complying with the threshold of being admitted as a bhoomidhar with non-transferable rights. The petitioners had approached the Assistant Collector, First Class/Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi who by means of order dated 15.11.2002 had declared the petitioner Ram Sajan as a bhumidhar with non transferable rights. 4. It is further urged that at a later stage, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which was contested by the petitioners and the Assistant Collector First Class vide order dated 30.12.2005 found that the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 15.11.2002 was not validly passed on the ground that at the relevant time, the Tehsildar was not authorized to do so and moreover the procedure as required to undertake an inquiry as to whether the petitioners fulfilled the requirements under Section 122-B (4-F) was also not followed read with the relevant rules in this regard coupled with the fact that the Tehsildar did not have a right to declare any tenant/tenure holder/person as bhumidhar with non transferable rights. 5. With the aforesaid findings, the earlier order dated 15.11.2002 was set aside. This order dated 30.12.2005 passed in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act was assailed by the petitioners before the revisional court which was allowed by means of order dated 27.10.2006 and the matter was remanded for deciding the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned on merits. 6. After the remand vide order dated 27.10.2006 was passed, the petitioner moved an review and thereafter upon review the revisional court passed certain directions while remanding the matter vide its order dated 09.08.2007 and provided that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi was directed to consider the said application of the petitioner under Section 122-B (4-F) on its merits and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties including the Land Management Committee as well as after calling for an meeting for moving the proposal for the necessary formalities to be completed. 7. It is urged that once the right has been conferred on the petitioners on 23.11.2002 and moreover in terms of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 2002 which came into effect on 10th of September, 2002 the word Tehsildar has been amended in place of Assistant Collector, hence the order impugned whereby it was held that the Tehsildar did not have the jurisdiction, was not noticed hence the order of remand was bad. 8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 9. Apparently, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tehsildar who had passed the order on 23.11.2002 at the relevant time there was no proposal moved by the Land Management Committee recommending the case of the petitioners for being admitted as a bhoomidhar with non transferable rights as contemplated under Section 122-B (4-F) read with relevant rule No.115 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Ruled 1952. 10. The issue as to whether the petitioners fulfill the threshold is onc thing but it is also necessary that the procedure as prescribed in the rules have to be followed. It is considering the aforesaid fact that the respondent no.2 found that there was no proper adherence of the rules, hence taking an overall view by means of order dated 09.08.2007, the respondent no.2 has merely set aside the order passed earlier and with specific directions directed the petitioners to move an appropriate application and it also directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to call for a meeting in accordance with rules and thereafter submit a proposal for consideration of the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. 11. Apparently, this exercise of jurisdiction cannot be termed to be bad in the eyes of law especially when there is nothing on record of this petition which indicates that there was compliance and adherence to the rule 115 for considering the case of the petitioner for admitting him as a bhumidhar with non transferable rights. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any illegality in the order passed by the respondent no.2 which is merely a remand order and no rights have yet been finally decided. As the petition was filed in the year 2007, accordingly, it will be open for the petitioners to take recourse as may be available to him in law or seeking the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) read with rules and mere disposal of this petition may not come in the way of the petitioners, in case if the petitioners fulfill all the necessary requirements as per law and in case if an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered with expedition considering that the petitioners have been in possession since several decades as stated in the petition and his possession remained protected vide interim order dated 17.09.2007. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 ank Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench