Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Kshetra Pal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 19858 of 2001
Decided On : 25-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.K. Pandey
For the Respondents: A.K. Yadav, Avinash Chandra Srivastava, R.P. Singh, V.K. Nagaich

Only the Gaon Sabha or Collector can challenge a sale deed involving ceiling land; a stranger lacks legal standing to do so.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 166 and 167 - Land dispute - Sale deed executed by leaseholder declared illegal as leaseholder had no right to transfer ceiling land - Proceedings initiated by a stranger not maintainable - Court emphasized that only the Gaon Sabha or Collector has the right to challenge such transfers. (Paras 6, 19, 22)

(B) Legal standing - A stranger cannot challenge a sale deed unless they are an aggrieved party - The definition of an aggrieved person does not include mere disappointment or inconvenience. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the legality of a sale deed executed by a leaseholder of ceiling land, which was declared void by the SDM and upheld by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated by a stranger were not maintainable.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deed was void as the leaseholder had no right to transfer the land, and the proceedings initiated by a stranger were legally unsustainable.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the sale deed executed by a leaseholder of ceiling land and the standing of a stranger to challenge the sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only the Gaon Sabha or Collector has the right to challenge a sale deed involving ceiling land, and a stranger lacks the legal standing to do so.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. V.K. Nagaich, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

2. The present petition has been filed for following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.04.2001 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 90 of 1999-2000 Firozabad and order passed by the S.D.M. Jasrana in Suit no. 1/5.3.1997, Mulayam Singh Versus Ramurti and others.

(b) issue a writ order or dirction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to disturb the possession of the petitioner.

(c) Issue any such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(d) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

3. In the present case the land in dispute is plot number 2428 (area 0.22 decimal) at Mauja Padham Tehsil Jasrana, District-Firozabad, which was granted on lease to one Ishwar Das in the year 1981. On his death the said land was devolved upon his widow and legal heir Smt. Ram Murti whose name was entered in the land revenue.

4. In the year 1994 said Smt. Ram Murti, executed a sale deed favour of the present petitioner. It was alleged that initially the land was agriculture in nature, however, over the years of use, it was transformed into an Abadi land, used for residential purposes. At a belated stage one Mulayam Singh i.e. respondent no. 3 (allegedly a stranger) filed a complaint against the aforesaid sale deed and prayed for cancellation of it.

5. The said application was preferred before the SDM, Jasrana, under section 167 U.P.Z.A & L.R Act. 1950 and proceedings commenced.

6. The SDM concerned, by an order dated 23.02.2000, decided the proceedings and held sale deed illegal and it was directed that land in question be vested in the State Government and names of Smt. Ram Murti and Shri Ishwar Das be deleted from revenue records.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, however, said revision was dismissed by an order dated 26.4 2001.

8. Both the above orders are impugned in the present case. This Court has passed the following order on 21.05.2001:

“Notices on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by learned chief standing counsel.

Issue notice to respondent no. 3.

List for admission after service of notice on the respondents.

He has been argued that proceeding under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act having been started by stranger, the same was not maintainable in support of this learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Ram Vilas Upadhyaya vs. Chandra Shekhar 1992 R.D. 277. He has further been contended that after lapse of ten years the lease has acquired a right by which the land could have been transferred.”

In view of this, until further orders of this court, the petitioner shall not be dispossess from the land in dispute in pursuance of the impugned judgment and orders passed by the court below.”

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ram Vilas Upadhyaya (Supra) and referred its following paragraph:

“I would discuss about the legality of sale deed in favour of the appellants, but so far as the maintainability of suit by the plaintiffs is concerned, even assuming that the sale-deed was executed by a sirdar, in that event that would be void under Sec. 166 of the Act. The consequences of void transfers have been provided under Sec. 167 (1) of the Act. The right to sue has been given only to the Gaón Sabha or the Collector where the transfer is made by a sirdar, whereas right to sue has been given to the land holder in the case of transfer by an asami. Any private Individual, including plaintiffs who were totally strangers, so far as the right of succession was concerned as provided under Sec. 171 the plaintiffs were not the heirs of the vendor Sheobadan within the meaning of Sec. 171 (r) of the Act, hence they