The court ruled that land transfer injunctions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act do not apply where the area is not consolidated, especially after the cancellation of relevant notifications.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow thereby rejecting the application preferred by petitioner.

3. The petitioner moved an application under Section 34 of the LAND REVENUE ACT for mutation of his name in place of name of recorded tenure holder on the basis of registered sale deed whereby the petitioner had purchased a plot of land Khasra No.874 Khatauni No.134 area 6 Biswa situated at Village Sikroori, Pergana, Tehsil and District Lucknow from its recorded tenure holder Shri Kailash Chandra Yadav son of Late Shri Baboo Lal.

4. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the area of Khasra No.874, total area was 2 Bighas 9 Biswa, out of which the petitioner has purchased only 6 Biswas of land which was a fragment of the total holding of the recorded tenure holder. On the application of the petitioner for mutation, a notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow under Section 166 /167 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act asking him to respond as to why the said land should not be vested in the State Government in light of the provisions contained in Section 168 -A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, which provides for a clear injunction of fragmenting that holdings. The proceedings before the S.D.M. were conducted ex parte and the petitioner did not appear and only after perusal of the record, the S.D.M. recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner had purchased 6 Biswa of land in Gata No.874 which happens to be a fragment of the total area which is not permissible in light of provisions under Section 168 -A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and accordingly, directed the vesting of the said land in the State Government. It was further submitted that as per provision of 166 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, any transfer made in contravention of the Act was void and as per the consequences provided under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, the said land vested in the State Government after he declared the said transfer to be void.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2001 preferred a revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow. Before revisional authority, it was submitted that the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are illegal and arbitrary and in gross violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was given and hence prayed for setting aside the said order.

6. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) considered the arguments of the petitioner, who subsequently, did not appear in the revision and consequently, it was rejected holding that there has been no violation of principle of natural justice.

7. The counsel for the petitioner while assailing both the orders date 30.08.2001 and 11.10.2002 has submitted that a perusal of Section 168 -A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act would indicate that injunction against transfer of fragments applies only if the said land is situated in consolidated area and does not extent to any other area which is not found to be part of consolidated area. He submits that the said amendment was brought into effect by U.P. Act, 18 of 1956 but it was omitted from the statute book by U.P. Act 27 of 19 from 2004 w