Collector Must Independently Determine Landless Persons’ Eligibility Before Allotting Government Agricultural Land.

The petitioners, whose names were included in a list of landless persons eligible for government lease in Village Sheikhpur, challenged proceedings concerning allotment of agricultural land.

After earlier remand proceedings, the Tehsildar referred the matter for approval, and the Collector approved the Tehsildar’s recommendation without independently examining the applicants’ eligibility.

The Additional Commissioner dismissed the petitioners’ challenge, principally on the ground that necessary parties had not been impleaded.

The petitioners sought, among other reliefs, an inquiry by the Collector into the eligibility of all concerned landless persons.

Whether, under the State Government circular dated 30 June 2007, the Collector was required to independently determine eligibility for allotment of agricultural land, rather than merely approve the Tehsildar’s recommendation.

Whether the Collector’s failure to conduct an independent inquiry warranted setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

The circular dated 30 June 2007 appointed the District Collector as the authorised officer for allotment of government agricultural land; a Tehsildar, Additional Tehsildar, or Naib Tehsildar could exercise allotment authority only if specifically authorised by the Collector for a special campaign.

The Collector was therefore required to exercise the authority independently and consider eligibility under The Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Niyam, 1986.

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to correct the material irregularity in the proceedings.

The Collector was the designated authorised officer under the circular, but the record showed that he had merely approved the Tehsildar’s recommendation and had neither examined the eligibility of the petitioners and other landless persons nor directed an inquiry.

That approval did not constitute the independent exercise of the Collector’s jurisdiction required by the circular.

The Additional Commissioner also failed to address this defect, making intervention appropriate.

The Collector was directed to inquire into the eligibility of the petitioners and other concerned landless persons under the applicable law and circular, decide independently by a reasoned order after hearing all affected persons, and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The petition was disposed of.