Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3406
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Prem Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner (Administration)Lucknow Mandal & Ors. - Respondent
Misc. Single No. - 4857 of 2015
Decided On : 20-08-2015
For the Petitioner: H.N. Tiwari,Avinash Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Yogendra Nath Yadav
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of restrictions on land transfer under Section 157-AA U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the consequences of void transactions.
Headnote:
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act - Land Dispute - Section 143, Section 166/167, Section 131-B, Section 157-AA - The court discussed the provisions of Section 143, Section 166/167, Section 131-B, and Section 157-AA of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. It highlighted the restrictions on transfer of land, the rights of Scheduled Caste individuals, and the consequences of void transactions. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders related to a land dispute under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, claiming that the land was declared non-agricultural under Section 143 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and that he had acquired rights through a sale-deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's acquisition of the land was void due to restrictions under Section 157-AA U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, and the proceedings under Section 143 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act were not maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the petitioner's acquisition of the land, the applicability of Section 143 and Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, and the rights of Scheduled Caste individuals under Section 157-AA U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's acquisition of the land was void due to the restrictions under Section 157-AA U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, and the proceedings under Section 143 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act were not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.5.2014 passed in the proceedings under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act as well as the orders 27.2.2015 and 24.7.2015 passed in revision preferred against the said order and the review of the revisional order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a land registered at Khata No. 640tha by way of registered sale-deed dated 10.11.1998 from one Bhusey son of Bhagwant. The seller and purchaser both belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The name of petitioner was mutated on the basis of the said sale-deed in the revenue records khatauni. The petitioner in the year 2011 had moved an application under Section 143 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act for change of use of land. Vide order dated 15.6.2011 the land in question was declared as non-agricultural land. It is submitted that on a complaint made by a third party the proceedings under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was initiated and on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar concerned the order impugned dated 22.5.2014 was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Revision No. 20141000001377 which was rejected vide order dated 27.2.2015. The petitioner thereafter had filed review petition which was rejected vide order dated 24.7.2015. It is contended that once the land was declared as non-agricultural land under Section 143 U.P.Z.A&L.R. Act, the proceedings under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act could not have been initiated. Under Section 143 (2) U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, after the declaration under Section 143, the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cease to apply to the Bhumidhar with transferable rights and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of land by personal law to which he is subjected.
5. It is also contended that the respondent no. 2, Assistant Collector, Mohanlalganj has committed error while declaring the land in question as agricultural land in the proceedings under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
6. Contention is that no separate proceedings under Section 144 U.P.Z.A&L.R. Act were held and the power under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act cannot be clubbed with the power vested under Section 144 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
Learned counsel for petitioner also contended that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question as such he is entitle to get the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
7. Learned standing counsels, on the other hand, submits that in view of Section 157-AA U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, there is restriction of transfer of land in question. The land belonging to a Scheduled Caste, which is allotted to him under Section 131-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, cannot be transferred by way of sale-deed to any other person without permission from the Assistant Collector. The entire transaction of the alleged sale-deed, on the basis of which the petitioner had acquired the right over the land in question, was void.
8. It is further submitted that since the said transaction was itself void as such the application, if any, or the proceedings held pursuant to the said application under Section 143 U.P.Z.A&L.R. Act were itself bad and not maintainable.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
10. It is the admitted case of the petitioner, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court, that the land in question belongs to a Schedule Caste which was allotted to him in exercise of powers under Section 131-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The petitioner on the basis of the alleged registered sale-deed dated 10.11.1998 had acquired the land in question from Bhusey son of Bhagwant.
11. It i
