Point of Law: A decision by an authority exercising discretionary power under a statute must be arrived at by taking into account the relevant considerations and eschewing the irrelevant considerations, in the absence of which the action would have to be held as ultra-vires and void.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Guru Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri. Amit Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

2. The present petition seeks to assail the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Respondent no. 3-Additional Collector (Administration), Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 433 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. D2020095500000433, Sitaram vs. State) whereby permission sought by the petitioner under Section 98(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 [the Code 2006] was turned down. The subsequent order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Respondent no. 2-Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Case No. 1145 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. C202109000001145, Sitaram vs. State of U.P.) in terms of which the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected is also sought to be challenged.

3. As per the facts set out in the writ petition, the petitioner claims himself to be a recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 379/2 measuring 0.3280 hectares, recorded in Khata No. 50 situate at Village-Behada Assa, Tehsil Jaansath, District Muzafarnagar. The petitioner is stated to have purchased the aforesaid land on 02.03.2005 and thereafter claims to have become a bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is contended that the petitioner’s son died untimely, leaving behind two daughters and two sons and to meet these liabilities, the petitioner desired to sell the land in question. It is also stated that the petitioner had become old and feeble and with no one to look after him, he sought permission from the Collector for transfer of the land and submitted the application in the prescribed RC Form-27. Upon the aforesaid application, a report was called from the committee headed by the Sub Divisional Officer and as per the report dated 13.01.2020, the land in question had been obtained by the petitioner by means of a sale deed and the petitioner was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights. It was also stated in the report that the land in question was not a public utility land and that after transfer of the same, the area of the land held by the petitioner would be 4.4150 hectares. It was mentioned in the report that the petitioner was old and remained frequently ill and in the absence of adequate irrigation facilities was finding it difficult to carry on the agricultural operations. Taking into consideration this together with the fact that his son was predeceased leaving behind the liability of two grand-daughters and two grand-sons on the petitioner and that the petitioner was in need of funds for their education and marriage, the report along with the recommendation of the Committee was submitted to the authority concerned.

4. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid report in terms of which a clear recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner, his application was rejected by the Respondent No. 3 by an order dated 19.07.2021 by assigning reasons that the application did not state the circumstances under which the land in question was purchased and that the petitioner could make arrangement for irrigation facilities. The order also records that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to support the factum of his illness. It was also stated that the petitioner was allotted the land in question on a patta and that he was seeking transfer of the land for personal gains. The revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been rejected by the Respondent No. 2 cursorily after reiterating similar reasons.

5. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities in rejecting his application seeking permission are wholly inconsequential for the purpose of grant of permission under Section 98 of the Code, 2006. It is submitted that none of the reasons cited by the respondent authoriti