JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The instant writ petition arises out of a case under section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, whereby he has recalled the permission granted on 5.11.2006 to some members of the Scheduled Caste to execute a sale deed of half share of their land in five plots and has referred the matter for drawing proceedings under sections 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as also the order dated 26.6.2019, whereby the consequential revision has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that an application was filed on 20.4.2006 by 12 persons seeking permission to sell plot Nos. 518, 663, 663/1036, 663/1054 and 661/4 area 6 acres.

3. After due enquiry, vide order dated 5.11.2006, the Chief Revenue Officer granted permission for sale of half area of plot Nos. 518 area 0.380 hectare, 663 area 01.465 hectare, 663/1036 area 0.975 hectares, 661/4 area 0.239 hectare, totalling area 3.189 hectares with the condition that within three months of the sale land of equal area would be purchased and proof of such purchase would be furnished to the Court concerned, failing which, the permission would stand cancelled, automatically.

4. It appears that the sale deeds were executed in favour of several persons including the petitioners, consequent to the permission aforesaid. It would be relevant to note that the petitioners are 43 in number.

5. An application for recall of the permission was filed by the respondent No. 5 on 12.11.2013 on the allegations that the sale deed had been executed in excess of their share by the persons, who had obtained permission. In fact portion of the land regarding which permission was obtained had been acquired and that the vendors were left with only 2.33 acres of land.

6. On the restoration application, despite notice, the opposite parties, therein, failed to appear. An ex parte order has been passed against them, which was subsequently recalled and a fresh order has been passed after hearing the parties on 6.9.2017. Thereby, the permission granted in the year 2006 has been recalled on the ground that the conditions specified in the permission had not been duly complied with, landless then what had been permitted to be sold, had in fact been sold; In any case, the sale deed was in favour of persons, to whom sale had not been permitted. Accordingly, the permission dated 5.11.2006 was annulled. As it was found that the sale deeds were without the requisite permission under section 157A, it was directed that the proceedings under sections 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act being instituted and for this purpose, notices be issued to the parties.

7. This order has been affirmed on dismissal of the revision filed by the opposite party vide order dated 6.6.2019.

8. The contention of Counsel for the petitioners, who are the vendee of the persons, who had obtained permission in the year 2006 to execute sale deed, is that the Chief Revenue Officer had no power to impose conditions while granting permission for sale under section 157A of the Act.

9. It has also been submitted that the conditions imposed were contingent conditions and therefore, not valid. In any case, such contingent permission cannot effect third party rights created on the basis of permission for sale, actually granted. In any case, the transferee purchased other land, although later in time and therefore, there was substantial compliance by them, of the conditions mentioned in the permission dated 5.11.2006.

10. It has also submitted that the purchase of land after the sale was made as per the permission dated 5.11.2006 can be a long drawn process determined and affected by the uncertain circumstances. It is possible