Sale deed executed under statutory permission remains valid despite allegations of fraud, provided conditions were adequately met per the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner moved an application under Section 157 -A U.P.Z.A.&.L.R. Act for permission to execute the sale deed in respect to plot No.150/2 area 1.511 hectare of Khata No.595 situated in Village- Azamganj Madiya, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Badaun, which was registered as application No.72/2000-2001 District Magistrate vide order dated 8.8.2001 granted permission to the petitioner for execution of sale deed in respect to plot number 150/2, area 1.511 hectare. Petitioner executed the sale deed on 10.8.2001 in pursuance of the permission granted on 8-8-2001 in favour of respondent No. 5. On 18.09.2007, petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 3 stating permission granted on 8.8.2001 is to be recalled, as the same was obtained by fraud. Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 15.11.2007 passed an order on the petitioner's application to approach the Competent Court for cancellation of sale-deed, if any fraud is committed in grant of permission or execution of sale deed. Respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 15.11.2007 by way of revision before Commissioner Bareilly Region, Bareilly which was registered as revision No.C201912000001031. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Region Bareilly allowed the revision and remitted the matter before respondent No. 3 with direction that matter be decided afresh after ascertaining the fact about payment of loan deposited by the respondent No.5 or not on the reports from the concern Bank. After remand order matter proceeded before respondent No.4 and Bank has submitted the report that amount of loan has already been paid. Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 26.3.2018 passed the order that since the loan has been paid as such the sale-deed executed on 10.08.2001 shall be treated as valid execution of the sale deed after getting proper permission of the authority. Petitioner challenged the order dated 26.3.2018 before respondent No. 2 under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 which was dismissed, vide order dated 12.7.2023 hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 and 26.03.2018 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner belongs to schedule caste and he never given application under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A.& LR Act for permission as such the entire proceeding is vitiated and there is no proper permission for execution of sale deed as prescribed under U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act & Rules framed there under. He further submitted that petitioner is illiterate person as such petitioner was defrauded by respondent No. 5 who is influential person. He further submitted that even the condition imposed under the order granting permission has not been complied within time as such the subsequent deposition will not make sale deed valid. He further submitted that Revisional Court has illegally dismissed the petitioner's revision without considering points argued and set up by the petitioner in the revision. He further submitted that petitioner has filed a civil suit No. 218 of 2001 for cancellation of sale deed alleged to be executed on 10.08.2001 regarding plot in dispute before Civil Judge Senior Division which is pending.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted