Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
Dayali and others - Petitioners
Versus
Additional Commissioner (First) and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25388 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Property - Land Rights - U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 - Sections 166, 333; U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rule 103 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding land transfer and bhumidhar rights, concluding that only the plot transferred in violation of the law would vest with the State, preserving the petitioners' rights to the other plot.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders vesting land in the State, arguing that their father's sale deed for one plot was valid and did not affect their rights to another plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that only the plot sold in violation of the law would vest with the State, while the other plot remained with the petitioners as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.
Issues: Whether the orders vesting land in the State were valid given the circumstances of the sale and the rights of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, only the plot sold in contravention of the law would vest with the State, affirming the petitioners' rights to the remaining plot.
Result: The petition is partly allowed; plot No. 3414/1 vests in the State, while plot No. 872 remains with the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 as well as Sri Ambuj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 6.3.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 501/122/2013-14, Computer Case No. C20140700001122 (Dayali and others v. U.P. State), under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and order dated 30.10.1991 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 458 and further direction be issued to expunge the name of State from Gata No. 872 area 0.595 hectare situated at Village Itawan, Tehsil Rajapur, District Chitrakoot.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that plot Nos. 872 and 3414/1 have been extended as lease way back in the year 1974 in favour of the petitioners' father and name of the father of the petitioners has been recorded in the revenue record as bhumidhar with non transferable right which is apparent from the record of rights appended with the petition. Thereafter, father of the petitioners executed a sale-deed on dated 26.11.1984 in respect of plot No. 3414/1, in pursuance of the registered sale-deed executed by father of the petitioners, mutation proceedings have been initiated by purchaser and the same has been negated vide order dated 30.10.1991 by way of giving categorical findings that the possession held by father of the petitioners over the plot No. 3414/1 was under the capacity of bhumidhar with non transferable rights and as such, under Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, the sale-deed executed by father of the petitioners became void and plot Nos. 872 and 3414/1 vested with the State. In pursuance of the order dated 30.10.1991, revenue records have been modified in shape of entering the name of the State against plot No. 3414/1.
4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.10.1991, petitioners preferred a revision under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 after demise of their father with categorical stand that once the sale-deed has been executed by father of the petitioners only in respect of plot No. 3414/1, the order passed by respondent No. 2 with regard to plot No. 872, cannot be vested with the State, but the grounds mentioned in the revision have not been accepted by the respondent No. 1 and the same has been culminated into order dated 6.3.2023 which impugned the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised his arguments on the ground that it is the settled proposition of law that only plot No. 3414/1 which has been put for transfer without having right, only that plot shall be vested with the State under Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 but the other plots if possessed by the lessee, shall not be transferred and as such, the order dated 30.10.1991 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 6.3.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 are illegal and the same are contrary to the provisions contained under Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for Gram Sabha vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the instant petition on the ground that once the illegal action has been carried out in shape of transferring the land through registered sale-deed for the plots which have been already extended in shape of lease in favour of the father of the petitioners then the action initiated by respondent No. 2 was justified and the petitioners/father of the petitioners are having no right to retain the plots as extended in shape of lease.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners substantiated his arguments on the basis of Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 which is reproduced hereinbelow :
Only land transferred in violation of the law vests with the State, preserving the rights of the bhumidhar for other plots.
The established rights of a party should not be undermined by arbitrary state actions or prolonged restoration proceedings, especially when prior orders have not been set aside.
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.
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....
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....
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.
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....
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 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
