The allottee has no transferable right for transfer of the land to a person outside his family or landless labor without prior approval, to fulfill the legislative intent of providing land for residential purposes to poor persons and preventing the sale of Gaon Sabha land to outsiders.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 30. 7. 1985 and 19. 11. 1984 passed in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that a report under Rule 115-C of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules was submitted by the Lekhpal alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon one biswa and 4 biswansis land of plot No. 144 since 1391 Fasli which was the Gaon Sabha property. Notice in form 49-Ka was issued to the petitioner who filed his objection on 29. 6. 84 interalia, stating that prior to 1972 the land belonged to Gaon Sabha. In the year 1972 plot No. 144 was allotted to several persons including one Zulfikar son of Rahamo who had put up a hut over the said land and had remained in possession over it for more than 11 years who transferred the land and the hut to the petitioner in 1984 for Rs. 99/- only. It is submitted that the petitioner also had made his hut on a part of the land said to have been allotted to Zulfikar.

( 4 ) A categorical finding of fact was given by the Trial Court that the property in dispute is recorded as Nai Parti in the revenue records and is Goan Sabha property. The relevant portion of the order dated 19. 11. 84 of the trial Court is as under:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 5 ) FROM the aforesaid pleadings and the order it is evident that the land over which the petitioner had made his hut was "nai Parti" and Gaon Sabha land. It appears that in the garb of Patta the land and the hut of Zulfikar, the petitioner had also encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land and had made his hut on the land in dispute.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Collector, muzaffarnagar which was dismissed vide order dated 30. 7. 85. The revisional Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the order of the trial Court was not in accordance with law as it had failed to consider the fact that no orders were passed on the application of the petitioner regarding summoning the documents for allotment of plot No. 144 on Patta in favour zulfikar and others. The revisional Court held that the petitioner had not filed any documents in respect of allotment of plot No. 144 in his favour or in favour of Zulfikar. If the Gaon Sabha had given Patta to Zulfikar the petitioner could have proved or established it from the records. Neither any Patta nor any sale-deed had been filed by the petitioner to prove his title or title of zulfikar over the disputed land.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, in the instant case the petitioner has failed to prove that the land was allotted by l. M. C. to Zulfikar in accordance with law after obtaining prior approval of the Assistant collector Incharge of the Sub Division or that the land in dispute was ever allotted to Zulfikar. It is not established that Zulfikar was allotted land by land Management Committee with prior approval of Assistant Collector of the division. No material has been placed before this Court that Zulfikar had any right, title or interest to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner.

( 8 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner relying upon Rules 115-R and 115-S of the Rules framed under the u. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 has contended that once the land is allotted, Gaon Sabha can not initiate proceedings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act unless allotment in favour of the allottee is cancelled. He submits that the embargo under the aforesaid Rules 115-R and 115-S is only for a period of 10 years and thereafter the land can be transferred by the allottee as he perfects his rights after 10 years and that none of the authorities have passed any order cancelling allotment at any time. As an illustration he has relied upon section 131-B, which came into force w. e. f. 14. 1. 95 and submits that even agricultural land can be