Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Sudheer Kumar Jain - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 18585 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 166, 167 – U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 – Rule 103, 104 – U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 – Section 34 – Quashing orders – Ground of jurisdiction – HekdmAdmittedly, in instant matter, order impugned vesting land in State/ in proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Additional Collector, which cannot be sustained in eye of law – Revisional Court has also failed to consider point of jurisdiction, as such, revisional order also suffers from error of law – Considering entire facts and circumstances, impugned orders passed by Additional Commissioner, Administration, Second, Region & District- and order, Saharanpur cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and same are hereby set aside – Writ petition is allowed in part.
ORDER :
1. Amendment application filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.Nil of 2023
1. Office is directed to allot number to the instant application.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the writ petition during course of the day.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the parties without inviting counter affidavit.
3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, validate the transaction/sale deed no.4578 dated 24.5.1985 pertaining to plot situated at Khasra no.497M area 0.0195 Hectare (233-1/3) out of area 2.048 at village-Dara-kot-tala Swad Bairun Pargana, Tahsil & District- Saharanpur, on payment of required fee.
iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
4. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Arun Jain purchased the plot no.497M on 20.9.1982/2.5.1983. Petitioner purchased the plot of Khasra No.497M area 0.0195 hectare out of 2.048 hectare from Smt. Arun Jain. On 24.5.1983, one Israr Khan son of Jameel Khan alleged to have purchased the same plot no.497M area 0.0195 hectare out of area 2.048 hectare, situated at Village-Dara-kot-tala Swad Bairun Pargana, Tahsil & District-Saharanpur on 1.12.2015 from Smt. Arun Jain. The mutation proceeding was initiated on the basis of registered sale deed executed in respect to the plot in dispute before the Tahsildar by Smt. Arun Jain, petitioner and Israr Khan, which were registered as Case Nos.T201709601012276, T201709601012278 & T20170960101630. Petitioner filed objection to the mutation application filed by Israr Khan on 6.6.2017. Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 24.8.2017 ordered to record the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute in the proceeding Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Israr Khan filed an application dated 8.9.2017 recalling the order dated 24.8.2017, which was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2017. The order dated 30.10.2017 was passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner, accordingly, petitioner filed an application on 7.12.2017 for recalling the order dated 30.10.2017. Up-Ziladhikari, Saharanpur remanded the matter back before the Tahsildar on the ground of jurisdiction. Additional Collector, Saharanpur issued notice to Smt. Arun Jain & Shri Rajneesh Tripathi in respect to the proceeding pending pertaining to sale deed dated 20.9.1982/2.5.1983, petitioner moved an application in the pending proceeding that they may be impleaded and opportunity be given to contest the proceeding. Additional Collector, Saharanpur vide order dated 17.2.2023 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dated 17.2.2023 by way of revision which was heard and rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31.3.2023, hence this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submitted that Additional Collector has
The Collector lacks jurisdiction to declare agricultural land transactions void; such authority is vested in the Assistant Collector First Class as per relevant sections of the U.P. Zamindari Aboliti....
The main legal point established is that the Sub-Divisional Officer, not the Collector, is empowered to declare a transfer as void under Sections 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
A sale deed canceled by a Civil Court prevents subsequent actions vesting the land in the State, affirming the validity of the registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner.
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.
Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from the date of passing of any order passed by the Mamlatdar.
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....
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
