Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Jai Bajrang Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Another - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad and 9 Others - Respondent
Writ - B No. 831 of 2017
Decided On : 19-01-2017
Zamindari Abolition - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 161 - 161 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of exchange under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, holding that the land sought to be exchanged by the Agra Development Authority was not vested in the authority under Section 117 of the Act, making the proceedings for exchange without jurisdiction and malafide.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a writ petition challenging an order of exchange under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The exchange proceedings were initiated on a joint application by a Co-operative Housing Society and the Agra Development Authority for exchange of plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land sought to be exchanged by the Agra Development Authority was not vested in the authority under Section 117 of the Act, making the proceedings for exchange without jurisdiction and malafide. The court dismissed the writ petition but directed the authority to consider the observations made in the judgment while passing final orders on the application for exchange.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the exchange proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and the jurisdiction of the Agra Development Authority to seek exchange of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that for an exchange under Section 161 of the Act, the land sought to be exchanged must be vested in the Gaon Sabha or local authority under Section 117 of the Act. The court held that the land sought to be exchanged was not vested in the Agra Development Authority, rendering the exchange proceedings without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition but directed the authority to consider the observations made in the judgment while passing final orders on the application for exchange.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard Shri S.K. Purwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anuruddh Chaturvedi for the respondents 4 to 9, Shri J.N. Maurya for the Agra Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Notice on behalf of Gram Panchayat Mohammadpur, has been accepted by Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava.
2. The instant writ petition arises out of an application under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for exchange and is directed against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 98 of 1997-98. This revision was filed by respondent no. 4.
3. The proceedings were initiated on a joint application dated 06.04.1993 filed by the petitioner and the Agra Development Authority for exchange of plot no. 276 area 5 bigha and odd with plot no. 215 area 6-10-11 bigha situated in Village Mohammadpur, Agra. The application aforesaid was allowed by order dated 23.12.1993.
4. Against this order, the contesting respondents 4 to 9 filed a restoration application on the ground that they too had a share in plot no. 276 and the exchange was without their knowledge and consent and therefore wholly ex-parte. The restoration application was allowed on 24.05.1996 holding the order of exchange to the ex-parte against the applicants.
5. Against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, allowing the restoration application, the petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society as also the Agra Development Authority, filed recall applications.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer on 19.07.1996 directed the parties to produce evidence so that the matter could be decided on merits.
7. Against this order as also an order dated 13.08.1996, the petitioner and the Agra Development Authority filed their revisions. By an order dated 25.03.1998, three revisions, were allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24.05.1996, 19.07.1996 and 13.08.1996, respectively.
8. Aggrieved by the revisional order aforesaid, passed by the Commissioner, respondents 5 to 9 preferred revisions before the Board of Revenue. However, these revisions were dismissed for default on 25.04.2007. Thereafter, restoration applications were filed for recall of the order dismissing the revisions for default. These restoration applications were dismissed on 16.09.2008.
9. The respondents thereafter filed review applications. The review applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the Division Bench was affirmed upon dismissal of the writ petition filed challenging it.
10. The Board of Revenue, thereafter by the order dated 28.01.2016 has allowed the revisions and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for a decision afresh after hearing the parties on merits. It is this order, which is impugned in this writ petition.
11. Shri Anuruddh Chaturvedi counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has submitted that the orders impugned in the instant writ petition had been challenged by the Agra Development Authority by means of writ petition nos. 38202 of 2016, 38206 of 2016 and 38211 of 2016. These writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2016. It is therefore submitted that the order impugned has already been affirmed by the writ court and, therefore, this writ petition filed by the Co-operative Society, is necessarily required to be dismissed.
12. Shri J.N. Maurya counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority has submitted that since the writ petition filed by the Agra Development Authority has already been dismissed by this Court, he has nothing further to add in the matter.
13. It would further be relevant to note that in pursuance of earlier orders passed in this writ petition, Shri J.N. Maurya, after obtaining instructions has furnished a compilation before this Court, which has been taken on record. This compilation contains documents pertaining to this case as also the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acqui
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
