Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Murtja - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 9568 of 2024
Decided On : 17-05-2024
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Land Rights and Allotment - Sections 115-P, 132, 194, 198(9), 333 - The court interpreted Sections 115-P and 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, emphasizing that land categorized as 'Johad' (Pond) cannot confer Bhumidhari rights. The court concluded that the allotment to the original vendor was irregular, and thus the subsequent sale deed to the petitioner was void ab initio, reinforcing the principle that rights cannot accrue from an invalid title.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality of orders from the Additional Commissioner and Additional Collector regarding land recorded as 'Johad' (Pond) under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The land was originally allotted to Mohd. Ali, whose heirs later sold it to the petitioner. The authorities contended that the land was improperly allotted and could not confer Bhumidhari rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in question was categorized as 'Johad' and thus covered under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which prohibits the accrual of Bhumidhari rights. The court upheld the findings of the Additional Collector and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner acquired valid rights over the land through the sale deed, given the land's classification and the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the original allotment was invalid as it contravened Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which does not allow Bhumidhari rights on land categorized as 'Johad'. Consequently, the sale deed executed by the vendor was void, and the petitioner could not claim any rights over the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the lower authorities without costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) :
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, Land Management Committee.
2. The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Case No. 629 of 2023, under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 as also the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Saharanpur in Case No. 13 of 2012-13 under Section 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
3. By the order dated 12.12.2023, the Additional Collector (F & R) Saharanpur after registering a case against the petitioner under Section 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has expunged the name of the petitioner and directed the land in dispute to be recorded as 'Johad' at the same time has cancelled the proposal of the Land Management Committee dated 24.02.1976 and approval dated 06.03.1976. The Revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed by the order dated 06.12.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the present writ petition relates to Plot No. 110M area 0.1740 which was recorded in the name of one Mohd. Ali son of Faimuddin, as Bhumidhar with Transferable Rights in Khatauni 1419F to 1424F since 1403F. After the death of the said Mohd. Ali, his sons Zulifikar and Mustafa and widow Shakila were recorded under PA-11 by the order of the Revenue Inspector dated 29.04.2008 and their names were also reflected in the Khatauni 1419F to 1424F. Mst. Shakila widow of Mohd. Ali, Zulfikar and Mustafa executed a sale deed dated 18.01.2008 in favour of Mustafa and Murtaza sons of Abdul Latif of the Plot No. 110/1M area 0.174 hectare and the names of Mustafa and Murtaza came to be recorded in the Khatauni 1419F to 1424F by order of the Tehsildar Nakur, Saharanpur dated 29.02.2009.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Collector, Saharanur submitted a report dated 30.06.2012 to the effect that the Plot No. 110 area 14 Biswa was recorded as 'Zohad' (Pond). The Land Management Committee under its resolution dated 24.02.1976 approved on 06.03.1976 allotted Plot No. 110 area 1 bigha in favour of Mohd. Ali under an agricultural lease. After the death of Mohd. Ali, the land stood recorded in the names of his heirs. The heirs transferred the land in favour of Mustafa and Murtaza, sons of Abdul Latif. In the allotted plot, an area of 0.031 hectare stands recorded as road and remaining area 0.174 hectare is recorded as 'Johad' (Pond) and the allotment in favour of Mohd. Ali was irregular as the land is covered by Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. On the strength of the report dated 30.06.2012, proceeding under Section 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated which culminated in order dated 12.12.2013. The Appeal preferred by Mustafa against the order dated 12.12.2013 was dismissed and the Revision under Section 333 was also dismissed. The writ petition filed by Mustafa was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a Revision against the order dated 12.12.2013, which has been dismissed by the order dated 06.12.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders impugned primarily on the ground that the Plot No. 110M area 1 Bigha was allotted to Mohd. Ali son of Faimuddin under the proposal of the Land Management Committee dated 12.12.1976 which allotment was also approved on 06.03.1976. The name of the Vendor of the petitioner was recorded over the land as Class-2 since 1395F. Out of total area 1 Bigha, 14 Biswa of Plot No. 110 was recorded as 'Johad' (Pond). Mohd. Ali became Bhumidhar of the plot of area 1 Bigha under Section 131-B of the U.P.Z
Land classified as 'Johad' under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not confer Bhumidhari rights, and any sale deed executed by a vendor without valid rights is void ab initio.
Aasami leases under U.P. law are limited to five years and cannot be inherited post-expiration, thus the petitioner had no rights over the land after the lease expired.
An Aasami lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is limited to a maximum of five years, and upon expiration, the rights do not transfer to heirs unless specifically provided by law. The court emphasized....
Bhumidhari rights cannot accrue on land classified as forest or public utility land under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950.
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community memb....
Point of Law : It is now well settled that under writ jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise its powers to interfere in an order and set it aside by an order, the ultimate effect of which would be....
Resolution by the Land Management Committee for land allotment without approval from the S.D.M. lacks legal validity, leading to unlawful possession claims.
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
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
