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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, 2 and 8 along with Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha who has been especially called upon by the Court for assisting the matter related to the complex question of law raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been instituted for challenging the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 under the proceedings initiated under Section 104 and 105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. While adjudicating the proceedings instituted by an alien person one Mr. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal who has been arrayed as respondent no. 3 in the instant petition, who is having a role as an informant before the respondent no. 2 for transfer which has been made by respondent no. 4 to 7 in favour of the petitioner, for treating it being void in terms of Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code of 2006, making it clear that the petitioner being purchaser of plot no. 4, 5-m, 6 and 7 situated at Gram BusanpurTehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur by way of lease deed instituted on 19.12.2018 executed by respondent no. 4 to 7 and as such he had never been a party under the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 under Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. During pendency of the proceedings in shape of case no. 2264 of 2021 (computerized case no. D2021143600002264) (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Meenu Seth and others) a report has been called for and the same was submitted by Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Kerakat, District Jaunpur, on dated 30.07.2021 which was in supplement and addition to the report submitted by Assistant Collector on dated 28.06.2021, wherein it is crystal clearly mentioned that the name of respondent no. 4 to 7 has been entered in the revenue records as a Bhumidhar having transferable rights under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, only on 6.7.2020 i.e. after the commencement of lease deed executed by respondent no. 4 to 7 in favour of the petitioner.

4. While arriving over the conclusion drawn by the respondent no. 2, the vital fact which is also mentioned that the prerequisite condition for transferring the land pertaining to the person belonging to Scheduled Caste community to a person belonging to non-Scheduled caste community is the permission granted by the Collector which has not been obtained by the petitioner. Several other factual and technical grounds have been mentioned and discussed with the rival submissions submitted by the respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 during adjudication of case no. 2264 of 2021 and ultimately the same was decided with the specific finding recorded in the concluding para of the order dated 23.06.2022 which impugned the present petition is quoted herein below :

5. By bare perusal of the above mentioned para of the impugned order which clearly shows that the transfer made by respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in shape of lease deed in favour of the petitioner has been declared void on the precise ground that no permission has ever been sought by the respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 from the Collector before executing the transfer deed in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order dated 23.06.2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on several other grounds inter alia that the proceedings initiated under Section 104 and 105 by the respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction and as such the respondent no. 2 was not competent in pursuance to the statutory provisions contained under Section 104, 105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, read with Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

7. While examining the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to quote the Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 as under :

"Section 104. Transfer in contrav