Point of Law : whether a particular land is a land which is of agricultural nature as is defined under Section 3(14) of the Act of 1950 or whether it was an abadi and when there was no declaration under Section 143 of the Act of 1950 then the Court dealing with the case was duty bound to refer the matter under Section 331A of the Act of 1950.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner purchased 275 Sq. Metres of land in Plot No.369 from Jaipal, Harpal and Bhopal sons of Late Sri Jahariya by a sale-deed dated 19.07.2008. Thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner asking her to explain as to why the sale-deed be not considered null and void and her property be vested in the State as the property was purchased by the petitioner from persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and no permission under Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1950”) was taken. By the order dated 23.05.2009, the sale-deed of the Plot No.369 Area 275.80 Sq. Metres was declared null and void and the property was vested in the State. Petitioner thereafter filed a Revision and when the Revision was also dismissed, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:-

(i) Petitioner did not receive any notice before the initiation of the case by which the land was to be vested in the State under Sections 166/167 of the Act of 1950.

(ii) Petitioner has submitted that before the Courts below, she had stated that the Plot when was purchased, was in the shape of abadi and that the stamp duty which was levied on the sale-deed, was also such as was leviable on a property of commercial nature.

(iii) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the Revisional Court, it was vehemently argued that as per the provisions of Section 331A of the Act of 1950, the question as to whether the property was agricultural or abadi had to be considered by the Assistant Collector and only thereafter it could be ascertained as to whether the land was of an agricultural nature or it was an abadi.

(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the land in question was abadi then the provisions of Section 157A of the Act of 1950 would not apply.

(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a bhumidar with transferable rights has been given the right to use the land in the manner as is proper under Section 142 of the Act of 1950 then it could not be said that when there was no declaration under Section 143 of the Act of 1950, the land had continued to be an agricultural land, despite the fact that it was being used as Abadi.

(vi) It has further been submitted that the method of conversion of a land from agricultural to abadi was not confined only to the provisions of Section 143 of the Act of 1950. He submits that if a controversy arose in any proceeding before a Court that whether the land was agricultural or it was abadi and a definite case was made out that there was a dispute with regard to the land being abadi or agricultural then the only course open to the Court was to refer the matter under Section 331A of the Act of 1950 to the Assistant Collector In-charge of the Sub-Division for a decision as to whether the land was agricultural or it was abadi.

(vii) In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgements of this Court passed in Haroon Ahmad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2012 (4) ADJ 179 and Lalita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2017 LawSuit(All) 2749.

(viii) Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in the absence of any reference being made to the Assistant Collector In-charge of the Sub-Division under Section 331A of the Act of 1950, the Courts below erred in holding that the land was an agricultural one. Under such circumstances, he submits that the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.

3. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply submitted that as no declaration with regard to the fact that the land was abadi was made under Section 143 of the Act of 1950 then definitely the land had to be treated as agricultural and when there was no permission taken by the purchasers as also by the sellers, the