LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/smt-shyamo-devi-and-others-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secretary-and-others-20240516/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

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

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
16 May 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2012
Result
Allowed
Bench
C.T. Ravikumar, Aravind Kumar
Citation
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430
Acts & Sections
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land…
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430
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.
Headnote

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 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]

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

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →