Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Saidan – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. & Others – Respondents
Writ B. No.3586 of 2018
Decided on : 06-12-2022
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 157-A – Land Acquisition – Ground of limitation –Facts of case are that khata no.4. khasra no.6/12, area 1.265 hectare situated, was initially recorded, son who belongs to scheduled caste community – Had taken a loan by mortgaging aforesaid land but borrower failed to repay amount, accordingly, mortgaged land was attached and put to auction – Held, Order impugned passed by Additional Collector, rejecting recall application of petitioner on ground that petitioner has no authority in proceeding under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, is also erroneous – Considering facts and circumstances of case as well as ratio of law laid down by this Court, right of petitioner cannot be infringed and property cannot be vested in State due to bar contained under Section 157-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, impugned order passed by Board of Revenue and orders passed by Additional Collector (Administration), District Bijnor are liable to be set aside and same are hereby set aside – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, counsel for the respondent – gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that khata no.4. khasra no.6/12, area 1.265 hectare situated at mauja-Sabuwala, Pargana-Badhapur, Tehsil-Nagina, District Bijnor, was initially recorded in the name of Amar Singh, son of Sukke who belongs to the scheduled caste community. Amar Singh had taken a loan from Khadi Gramodyog by mortgaging the aforesaid land but the borrower failed to repay the amount, accordingly, the mortgaged land was attached and put to auction. In the auction proceeding, petitioner was the highest bidder, accordingly, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of auction sale took place on 21.12.2000. On the basis of the sale deed, name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records through mutation proceeding. Some complaints were lodged by respondent nos. 4 to 10 before the Additional Collector stating that property in question originally belongs to scheduled caste, as such, same cannot be transferred to the petitioner, without obtaining permission from the Collector. The Additional Collector without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an ex parte order dated 6.10.2008, expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and vesting the property in favour of the State. Petitioner filed a restoration application, delay condonation application and stay application against the order dated 6.10.2008 but the Additional Collector has dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner vide order dated 9.4.2009 on the ground that petitioner was not party in the proceeding, hence the order dated 6.11.2008, cannot be recalled/set aside on the application of the petitioner. Petitioner under the legal advice, challenged the orders dated 6.10.2008 and 9.4.2009 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bijnor by means of filing a Complaint Case No.167/2009 which was dismissed on 1.1.2011 on the ground that Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. After receiving the certified copies of the order and other relevant documents, petitioner approached counsel for taking necessary steps in the matter, accordingly, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue on 22.12.2017 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit. The Board of Revenue, without considering the case of the petitioner on merit, has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Hence, this writ petition.
3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed the following interim order dated 23.4.2018:-
The matter needs consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.3.
Issue notice to the respondent nos. 4 to 10.
Counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents on or before date fixed.
List this case on 28th August 2018.
Till the next date of listing, both the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute.”
4. In pursuance of the order dated 23.4.2018, respondent no.3 has filed his counter affidavit and petitioner has filed his rejoinde
Only the Assistant Collector First Class is authorized to declare transactions void under Section 157-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, requiring proper inquiry into caste claims before such declarati....
Sale deed executed under statutory permission remains valid despite allegations of fraud, provided conditions were adequately met per the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The Assistant Collector First Class is the sole authority to declare agricultural land transactions void under Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
Improper adjudication and flawed processes in property vesting under U.P. Act rendered the vesting of property in the State unlawful, emphasizing the need for due process and fair administrative acti....
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
