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 declarations.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Maurya, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi for respondent no.7, Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 733 area 63-1/2 dismil situated in Village Parasi Khurd Pargana Majhawar Tehsil and District Chandauli was purchased by petitioner through registered sale deed executed on 28.6.2002 from respondent nos. 5 and 6. On the basis of the aforementioned sale deed, the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 15.7.2005. After about 3 years of the execution of the sale deed, an application was filed on 21.7.2005 by respondent no.4 (brother of petitioner's vendor) under Section 15 7- A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act stating that vendor belongs to Scheduled Caste, as such, sale deed is void and property should be vested in State. On the basis of the application dated 21.7.2005, case No. 1 of 2005 under Section 15 7-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was registered before respondent nos. 3 and notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner filed his objection that respondent no.4 has no right to file application/objection against the sale deed dated 28.6.2002 Respondent no.3/ Additional District Magistrate, Chandauli vide order dated 24.7.2006 declared the sale as void and vested the plot in dispute in the State. Against the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by respondent no.3, petitioner filed revision before the respondent no.2, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.2.2016. Petitioner filed a restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay which was rejected by respondent no.2 vide order dated 24.11.2022. Hence this writ petition challenging the orders dated 24.11.2022 & 23.2.2016 passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dated 24.7.2006 passed by respondent no.3.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding initiated under Section 157 -A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act at the instance of respondent no.4 was not maintainable. He further submitted that sale deed itself contains the recital that parties do not belong to Scheduled Caste. He further submitted that without conducting proper inquiry about the caste of the vendor, impugned order dated 24.7.2006 has been passed by respondent no.3 vesting the properties in the State. He submitted that order passed by respondent no.2 is also without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2012 (116) RD 69, Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others as well as in Writ C No.18585 of 2023 Sudheer Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and others dated 10.8.2023. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (4) ADJ 796; Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Sushila Devi and others in order to demonstrate that respondent no.4 have no locus to challenge the execution of sale deed executed by brother of respondent No.4 in favour of petitioner. He submitted that order impugned be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that order impugned has rightly been passed by respondent no.3 vesting the property in the State Government. He further submitted that after considering the pleading of the parties, the Court has held that sale deed is void in view of violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further submitted that revi