Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Radhey Shyam And Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 39002 OF 2015.
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Prakash Chandra, Bhanu Prakash Verma, Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Ram Singh, Shivendra Nath Singh, Vishal Khandelwal
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Satyendra Kumar Singh, Shri. Prakash, Suresh Chand Verma

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.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 157-AA, 166, and 167 - Agricultural lease and transfer of land - The Board of Revenue's order vesting land in the State was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction and maintainability, as the initial proceedings were rejected as not maintainable. (Paras 2, 5, 12, 14)

(B) Jurisdiction - The Assistant Collector First Class is the competent authority to declare a transaction void under Section 166, not the Collector or Additional Collector. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Board of Revenue's order vesting land in the State, arguing that the proceedings initiated by a private respondent were illegal and that the land was non-agricultural. (Paras 2, 5)

Findings of Court:
The Board of Revenue's order was set aside as it exceeded its jurisdiction, reaffirming that only authorized authorities can vest land in the State. (Paras 12, 14)

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the proceedings initiated by a private respondent and the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to vest land in the State.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assistant Collector First Class is the only authority competent to declare a transaction void under Section 166, and the Board of Revenue acted beyond its jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Shivendra Nath Singh, Mr. Ram Singh & Mr. Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent- Gram Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the agricultural lease was granted to one Ramji Lal (father of respondent nos.6 & 7) in respect to Khata No.265, Khasra No.442/1 area 0.648 hectare situated in Village- Mauja, Chiksoli, Tahsil- Chhata, District- Mathura. On the basis of agricultural lease executed in favour of Ramji Lal, the possession was delivered and Ramji Lal was recorded over the plot in question. Due to operation of the law he became bhumidhar with transferable right and recorded accordingly, over the plot in question. Ramji Lal expired leaving behind respondent nos.6 & 7 as his heirs and legal representative. Respondent nos.6 & 7 were accordingly, recorded over the plot in question and after death of their father, respondent no.6 executed a registered sale deed on 10.7.2001 in favour of petitioners' father- Dayoli Ram with respect to his 1/2 share in the aforementioned disputed plot. Respondent no.7 also executed another sale deed for remaining 1/2 share on 14.8.2001 in favour of petitioners' father. Petitioners' father expired on 23.11.2006 leaving behind the petitioners as his heir and legal representative. On the basis of sale deed executed by respondent nos.6 & 7 petitioners' father was recorded and after death of petitioners' father, petitioners were recorded and remained in possession over the same. A complaint was made by respondent no.5 on 1.7.2011 in respect to the sale deed executed on 10.7.2001 & 14.8.2001 on the ground that there is violation of the provisions contained under Section 157-AA of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, accordingly, the case registered before the Additional District Magistrate as Case No.11 of 2011-12, under Section 166/167 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). A report was submitted in the aforementioned proceedings by the authorities. Respondent no.3 i.e. Additional District- Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Mathura after considering the report submitted in the proceeding as well as the evidence on record rejected the proceeding, under Section 166/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as not maintainable vide order dated 20.1.2012. Against the order dated 20.1.2012, respondent no.5 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed and land has been ordered to be vested in State vide order dated 11.6.2015, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.6.2015 passed by respondent no.2- Board of Revenue.

3. This Court vide order dated 16.7.2015 entertained the matter and granted interim protection.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 16.7.2015, parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated in illegal and arbitrary manner by the private respondent no.5, who has no locus to initiate the proceeding. He further submitted that the proceeding was not maintainable. He next submitted that the land in dispute was declared as non-agricultural under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, the proceeding cannot be initiated under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction by vesting the plot in question in State Government. He also submitted that the authority prescribed under the Act can pass the order for vesting the land in State Government and Board of Revenue cannot pass the order for vesting the land in the State Government. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (116) RD 69, Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others as well as (2023) 0 Supreme (All) 968, Sudheer Kumar Jain v. S