Somwati vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2494

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2494

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. 11168 OF 2023.
Decided On : 03-08-2023

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

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 157-A, 166, 167, 169(2A) - Violation of transfer regulations by Scheduled Caste owner leading to invalid will deed - Court confirmed that transfers in contravention of the Act are void and vest estate in State - The rejection of the petitioner’s impledment application without hearing found to be valid. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 12)

(B) Civil procedure - The decree of a civil court based on compromise does not negate rights under statutory provisions in land revenue matters - The relevant statutes prioritize compliance over collusive actions in private agreements. (Paras 4, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land inherited through a will deed from their parent which was later disputed after the will was found to violate land transfer laws regarding caste. The state sought to vest the land due to this violation.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the order vesting land in the State due to statutory violations and indicated that a civil decree on the matter did not preclude the state's authority under the U.P. Land Reforms Act.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the will deed under provisions of land transfer law and the petitioner’s right against orders vesting land in the State without a hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the will executed in violation of statutory provisions was void and reaffirmed that statutory provisions restrict transfers based on caste lineage. It maintained that civil decrees regarding private disputes do not confer rights in contravention of land revenue laws.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of property ownership and will execution. (Para 2)
2. arguments regarding the cancellation of the will and its implications. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's examination of facts and legal compliance. (Para 5 , 6)
4. legal provisions regarding transfers by scheduled castes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. court's rationale on why the will was void. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. final decision and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 14 , 15)

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 Smt. Mittha Devi @ Mithula Devi wife of Salik Ram was the owner of plot No.944/15 area 0.405 hectare and Parsadi son of Badale was owner of plot No.944/13 area 0.405 hectare, who belongs to scheduled caste community. The aforementioned plots are situated at village Vasundhara, Pargana Marhara, Thesil and District Etah. Petitioner is the daughter of Prasadi. Smt. Mittha Devi 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-Jaydan Singh, whose name was also mutated in the revenue records on the basis of afore mentioned will deed vide order dated 30.8.2010. A restoration application was filed by Suresh Chandra 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 Mittha Devi @ Mithula Devi in favour of Jaydan Singh, who belong to Other Backward Caste Community, is in violation of the provisions contained under the U.P.Z.A. & 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. 1548/2017 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.60/2019, 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.1548/2017 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. 60/2019 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.761 of 2022 and order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the Addition District Magistrate, Etah in Suit No. 1548 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 di