Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Satendra Singh And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U P And 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. - 2175 OF 2023.
Decided On : 05-07-2023
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent: C.S.C
Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 154(2) and 167(2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 152 - Land disputes - Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application for rectification of an order vesting land in the state, contending it was based on misconceived grounds. Court found the impugned order arbitrary and not aligned with precedent, specifically the judgment in Surajbhan Sharma. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court’s role in judicial review - The High Court is tasked with ensuring that decisions from lower courts or authorities are not arbitrary and adhere to legal principles. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, descendants of a bhumidhar, sought to rectify a 1993 order vesting their land in the state, asserting no sale occurred to the buyer. They argued their application was maintainable, unlike others'.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order lacks merit due to arbitrariness and misapplication of law, requiring reconsideration by the Collector based on established legal precedents.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioners' application for rectification was legally justified and proper according to the established precedent on rectifying similar orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Collector's dismissal of the rectification application was arbitrary, failing to align with the legal principles in the Surajbhan Sharma case; it mandated proper evaluation of the petitioners' claims, thus protecting their legal rights.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part; the impugned order set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. estate transfer and heirs' records (Para 2) |
| 2. legitimacy of petitioners' application (Para 3) |
| 3. defending the legality of the original order (Para 4) |
| 4. acknowledgment of factual disputes (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. existing legal precedent's applicability (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. order for reconsideration of the case (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that late Mahboob Ali was bhumidhar with transferable right of Khasara No.19 area 1-10- 0 Bigha, Khasara No.20 area 0-13-0 Bigha Khasara No.21 area 0-9-0 Bigha, Khasra No.22 area 1-15-0 Bigha situated in village-Salarpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. After death of Mahboob Ali his heirs namely Sarjeet, Jaljeet and Charni were recorded in the revenue record. After death of Surjeet his heirs Dalip, Rati Ram, Bheem and Rajpal were recorded. After death of Dalip, legal heirs Rajendra (petitioner No.2), Virendra, Davendra and Satendra (petitioner No.1) were recorded as his heirs and legal representative. Charni had executed sale deed regarding his share on 19.10.1983 in favour of respondent No.4 but Sarjeet or his heirs had not executed any sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. Collector Ghaziabad passed an order dated 07.04.1993 vesting the land purchased by respondent No.4 in State in the proceeding Under Section-154 (2)/167 (2) of U.P.Z.A and L. R. Act in Case No.3/87-88. The petitioner's land was also shown in the order dated 07.04.1993 in the schedule-B although there was no sale by petitioner's or his ancestors in favour of respondent No.4 Petitioners filed an application on 29.07.2021 under Section 152 of C.P.C. against the order dated 07.04.1993 in case No. 3/87-88. Petitioners had filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being writ petition No.8402 of 2022 and same was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 20.05.2022. A copy of the order dated 20.05.2022 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.8 to this writ petition. District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 11.10.2022 dismissed the petitioners' application dated 29.07.2021 hence this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Collector/District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 152 of C.P.C. in application No.2 of 2021 (Rajendra Singh and another v. State of U.P.) as well as for commanding the Collector Gautam Budh Nagar to rectify the order dated 07.04.1993 under Section 154 (2) and 167 (2) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and remove the share of the petitioners from the Schedule B of Khasra No.19, area 1-10-0 Bhgha, Khasra No.20 area 0-13-0 Bigha, Khasra No.21 area 0-9-0 Bigha and Khasra No.22 area 1-15-0 Bigha of the revenue village Salarpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that an application filed under Section 154 (2) and 167 (2) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the order dated 07.04.1993 has been rectified on misconceived ground although in respect to other person, the application under Section 152 C.P.C. was allowed on merit. He further submitted that application filed by petitioners on the ground mentioned in the application was maintainable as such the dismissal of the same by the Collector is illegal. He further placed reliance upon judgement reported in (2011) 10 ADJ 296 Surajbhan Sharma v. State of U.P. and others in order to demonstrate that application for rectification is maintainable before the court concerned. He submitted that impugned order be set aside and application filed by the petitioners be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that order dated 07.04.1993 was passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that application filed by petitioners under section 152 of C.P.C. for rectification is not maintainable. He further submi
