Back
2019 Supreme(All) 410
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
Saroj - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. And Ors. - Respondents
Writ - C No. 8719 of 2014
Decided On : 30-03-2019
Jai Narain, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that without a specific declaration under Section 143(1) of the Act, the land cannot be termed as Abadi land merely because Abadi exists on the land. The sale deed executed in favor of the petitioner was held void under Section 166 of the Act and vested in the State Government by the operation of Section 167(1) of the Act.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Sale Deed - Sections 166, 167(1), 157(A)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and Collector, which declared the sale deed of a property as void under sections 166 and 167(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner claimed that the land was being used as Abadi land and the restrictions under Section 157(A) were not applicable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that without a specific declaration under Section 143(1) of the Act, the land cannot be termed as Abadi land merely because Abadi exists on the land. The sale deed executed in favor of the petitioner was held void under Section 166 of the Act and vested in the State Government by the operation of Section 167(1) of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed, the applicability of Section 157(A) and the status of the land as Abadi land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a specific declaration under Section 143(1) of the Act, the land cannot be termed as Abadi land merely because Abadi exists on the land. The sale deed executed in favor of the petitioner was held void under Section 166 of the Act and vested in the State Government by the operation of Section 167(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated.
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner in the revised call.
2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.4.2013, (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), passed by Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Aligarh Division, Aligarh in Revision No. 244 of 2012 and the order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by Collector, Etah in Case No. 07 of 2012.
4. The facts in brief are that Nand Kishore and Suresh Chand, two brothers are the owners of Gata No. 1023/2/0.081 hectare situated in Village Raar Patti, Pargana Etah Sakeet, District Etah. Nand Kishore belongs to Dhobi caste which is a Scheduled Caste. It is stated that Suresh Chand, the co-owner of the property, executed a registered sale deed of 344.10 square meter in favour of Smt. Rekha Rani, wife of Satendra Kumar and Nand Kishore also executed a registered sale deed of his share admeasuring 344.10 square meter in favour of the petitioner who is claimed to be belonging Backward Class.
5. In an application under sections 166 & 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Collector, Etah was instituted as Case No. 7 of 2012 (State vs. Smt. Saroj) by the state on the ground that sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner without obtaining permissions under section 157(A) of the Act and by virtue of provisions of sections 166 and Section 167(1) of the Act, the sale is void and the property vests in the State Government and also it was prayed that the name of the State Government be incorporated in the records and the petitioner be evicted under section 167(2) of the Act. The petitioner put in appearance before the Collector, Etah and submitted that the Collector does not have the jurisdiction and as such it was prayed that the application filed by the State under Sections 166/167 of the Act be dismissed.
6. The Collector, Etah, vide his order dated 30.10.2012, allowed the application filed by the State and held that as the sale deed has been executed by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste without obtaining any permission under section 157(A) of the Act, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was void by virtue of Section 166 of the Act and the property vests in the State by virtue of Section 167(1) of the Act. The Collector further directed that steps for possession be taken under Section 167(2) of the Act and the Tehsildar was directed to take further steps in that regards. The petitioner, aggrieved of the said order dated 30.10.2012, preferred a Revision No. 244 of 2012 before the Additional Commissioner, Aligarh. The Revisional Authority, vide its judgment and order dated 25.4.2013, dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 30.10.2012 again on the ground that the sale deed has been executed without obtaining the permission under section 157(A) of the Act and by operation of law, the sale deed is null and void and vests in the State Government. The present petition has been filed challenging both the said orders. At the time of admission, this Court had passed an order on 12.2.2014 which reads as under:
"Heard Sri Jai Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below have erred in vesting the land in the State treating the transaction contrary to the provision contained under Section 157-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Matter requires scrutiny.
Issue notice.
Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, therefore notice need not be served again to respondents no. 1 to 3.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 4 through registered post returnable at an early date.
As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, th
