Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3115
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Suresh - Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Administration) and 2 Others - Respondent
WritC No. 16781 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Petitioner:- Sunita Sharma and Vijay Chandra Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.
A void transfer under Section 157-AA of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act results in the land being deemed to have vested in the State, and any subsequent sale-deed based on such void transfer is also invalid.
Headnote:
Void Transfer - Land Dispute - UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, Section 157-AA, 166, 167
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the validity of two sale-deeds for the same property, with the first sale-deed being hit by Section 157-AA of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, leading to the land vesting in the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first sale-deed was void due to non-compliance with the Act, and the land had vested in the State, making the subsequent sale-deed also invalid.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the sale-deed executed in favor of the petitioner, given the prior void transfer and the subsequent vesting of the land in the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 167 of the Act, a void transfer results in the land being deemed to have vested in the State, and any subsequent sale-deed based on such void transfer is also invalid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders that directed the land to vest in the State and upheld the invalidity of the petitioner's sale-deed.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
Heard Shri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learning Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 24.09.2012 passed by Collector, Muzaffar Nagar and the order dated 30.10.2013, passed by Additional Commissioner.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that one Manga, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste obtained a lease of plot no. 267/624 area 0.205 hectare from the Gaon Sabha. Manga executed a sale-deed in favour of one Usmaan son of Unis on 26.07.1995.
3. Since this sale-deed was hit by Section 157-AA of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act a report, in this regard, was made by the Tehsildar on 11.02.2002 whereupon case no. 135 was registered.
4. Subsequently Manga executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.12.2002. In this regard, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jansath made a report dated 07.03.2003 and forwarded the same to the Collector. Along with this report, the record of case no. 135 referred to above was also forwarded to the Collector. Before the Collector, two cases were registered, namely, case no. 11 of 2002-03: Usmaan v. Manga and case no. 12 of 2002-03: Suresh v. Manga under Section 167 of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Both these cases were consolidated and case no. 11 of 2002-03: Usmaan v. Manga was made the leading case.
5. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that there are two sale-deeds of plot no. 267/624, area 0.205 hectares situated in village Khedi Firozabad, Pargana Jauli, Tehsil Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar.
6. The first sale-deed was executed by Manga in favour of one Usmaan on 26.07.1995 and the second sale-deed of the same property was executed on 27.07.2002 in favour of Suresh, the petitioner.
7. In these proceedings, Manga denied having executed any sale-deed in favour of Usmaan. He stated that Usmaan never sought mutation on the basis of the alleged sale-deed and, therefore, the document is a void document. It is, therefore, contended that the sale-deed in favour of the Suresh, which had been executed after obtaining permission from the Assistant Collector, was a valid sale-deed and on its basis, the petitioner was liable to be mutated.
8. The Collector, Muzaffar Nagar by his order dated 24.09.2012 directed the land in question to vest in the State. The copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate with the direction that the same be incorporated in the revenue records and possession of the land be taken. This order was passed in case no. 11 of 2002-03 (subsequently numbered as case no. 9 of 2007-08) and its copy was directed to be placed on the record of case no. 12 of 2002-03 also.
9. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision no. 16 of 2013-14. The Additional Collector (Administration), vide order dated 30.10.2013, dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition which is reported to suffer from laches of one year and sixty nine days.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale-deed in his favour had been executed after obtaining permission from the Assistant Collector and, therefore, it was not hit by Section 157-AA/166/167 of the Act. The orders impugned, therefore, are unsustainable.
11. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that the first sale-deed executed by the Manga on 26.07.1995, had been executed without obtaining permission and, therefore, it was a void transfer in view of Section 157-AA/166 of the Act. The land, subject matter of such a void transfer, vested in the State from the date of the transfer itself. Under the circumstances, Manga could not have executed a sale-deed of the same land in the year 2002 and, therefore, impugned orders have been rightly passed and the same are liable to be affirmed.
12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased land in question,
