Somwati vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2496

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Smt. Somwati - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 12297 OF 2023.
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rajeev Kumar, Prashant Yadav
For the Respondent: C.S.C, Krishna Kant Singh

Headnote:(A) U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 2006 - Sections 157-A, 166, 167, and 169(2A) - Land dispute involving transfer of land by Scheduled Caste individual to member of Other Backward Class - Transfer deemed void as it violated statutory restrictions - The executed will deed contravenes the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act causing the state to claim vested rights in the land. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 12, and 14)

(B) Civil Suit - Decree obtained in civil suit by petitioner cancelling the will deed is held to be collusive and ineffective against the state's vested rights in the property. (Paras 3, 4, 11)

(C) Right to hearing - The order vesting land in the State was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing, raising questions of procedural fairness. (Paras 2, 6, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, daughter of Prasadi, challenged orders vesting land to the State based on a will deed executed in violation of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, despite obtaining a decree from a civil suit that nullified the will deed.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld state rights to the land, determining that the will deed was executed in violation of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and deemed collusive any civil suit attempts to rectify this.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the will deed under statutory provisions and the procedural conduct of state authorities in vesting land rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that transfers made in contravention of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are void, maintaining the legality of state vested rights despite the civil court decree.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's inheritance claim based on will deed. (Para 2)
2. arguments on legality of will deed and its cancellation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court affirms execution violation and legality of vesting. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. significance of statutory provisions on land transfer restrictions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhisekh Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Goan Shabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Prasadi, who belongs to scheduled caste community, was the bhumidhar of plot no.944/13, area 0.405 hectare, situated at village Vasundhara, Pargana Marhara, Thesil and District Etah. Petitioner is the daughter of Prasadi. Prasadi had executed a registered will deed on 21.1.2000 in respect to his share of the plot in dispute in favour of respondent no.6-Neeresh Kumar, whose name was also mutated in the revenue records on the basis of aformentioned will deed vide order dated 30.8.2010. A restoration application was filed by Veeresh on 17.5.2016 along with delay condonation against the order dated 30.8.2010 in respect to the aforementioned will deed dated 21.1.2000 with the allegation that execution of the will deed by Prasadi in favour of Neeresh Kumar, who belong to Other Backward Caste Community, is in violation of the provisions contained under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act/U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, land in dispute is liable to be vested in the State. Tehsildar vide order dated 31.7.2017, allowed the restoration application dated 17.5.2016 as well as condoned the delay and set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of respondent no.6 and referred the matter for vesting the plot in dispute in favour of the State. On the basis of the order dated 31.7.2017 the case was registered as Case No. 1547/2017 under section 104/105 of U.P. Revenue Code before Collector. One civil suit for cancellation of the will deed dated 21.1.2000 was filed by the petitioner being Suit No.59/2019, impleading the respondent no.6 as sole defendant and the aforementioned suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.1.2021 on the basis of compromise to the effect that will deed executed on 21.1.2000 is cancelled. Petitioner filed an impleadment application on 23.9.2019 in the aforementioned Case No.1547/2017 under section 104/105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, stating that she has interest in the plot in dispute, but without opportunity of hearing, the order has been passed. The copy of the judgement and decree dated 29.1.2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 59/2019 was also filed in the case. The Additional Collector rejected the impledment application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 1.9.2021. Being aggrieved therefrom, petitioner filed revision which was dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2022. Upzila Adhikari vide final order dated 8.12.2022 ordered to expunge the name of respondent no.6 and record the name of state government hence this petition for quashing the order dated 24.8.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh in Revision No.760 of 2022 and order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the Addition District Magistrate, Etah in Suit No. 1547 of 2017 as well as order dated 8.12.2022, passed by Upzila Adhikari Etah.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect to will deed in question, the civil suit filed by the petitioner against respondent no.6, has been decreed on the basis of compromise and the will deed in question has been cancelled vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2021, hence, the order passed, vesting the plot in dispute in State Government should be set aside. It is further submitted that decree of the civil court cannot be nullified and the impugned order, vesting the land in the State Government is illegal. He further submitted that final orde