Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Deepak Madhok and Another – Appellants
Versus
Board of Revenue and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 61921 of 2007
Decided On : 13-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ashish Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh

Improper adjudication and flawed processes in property vesting under U.P. Act rendered the vesting of property in the State unlawful, emphasizing the need for due process and fair administrative action.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 122-B, 157-A, and 167 - Property vested in the State - Dispute over title; processes followed for vesting not adjudicated properly - Impugned orders quashed due to lack of due process in adjudicating objections raised by petitioners. (Paras 2, 5, 13)

(B) Due process - The impugned vesting order was based on flawed procedures and lacked proper adjudication of the specific objections that the vendor did not belong to Scheduled Castes status. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Property was sold via registered sale deed where a group of individuals transferred their shares. Dispute arose after the Sub-Divisional Officer vested the property in the State without proper adjudication as a notice was issued for the same, which petitioners contested.

Findings of Court:
The orders by various authorities vesting the property were set aside due to ineffective consideration of objections raised by the petitioners; specifically, the accurate status of the vendor in relation to Scheduled Castes.

Issues: Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer's decision vis-à-vis the property was adjudicated fairly and adhered to procedural requirements as mandated under relevant laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the process employed for vesting the property was flawed and lacked rigorous examination of the objections, thus failing to uphold principles of natural justice and due process.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. case facts and property ownership details. (Para 2)
2. court's analysis of objections and procedural correctness. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. contentions regarding the legality of the vesting order. (Para 5 , 6)
4. final court decision on the validity of previous orders. (Para 13)
5. conclusion and dismissal of the case. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that property in question was recorded in the name of Smt. Saranga Devi, Ranjeet, Sanjeet, Jagjeet and Smt. Jamuna Devi. Smt. Saranga Devi and others transferred their 1/2 share of the property in question in favour of Dr. Amrit Lal Ishrat (father of petitioner no.1) and Smt. Bharti Madhok (petitioner no.2) through registered sale deed dated 23.6.1988. Smt. Jamuna Devi executed an agreement to sale in respect to her 1/2 share in favour of Smt. D-Ishrat. The proceedings under Section 122 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") was initiated against Smt. Bharti Madhok and others which was decided vide order dated 11.3.1991 for ejectment and damages. Petitioner no.2/ Bharti Madhok filed revision against the order dated 11.3.1991 which was admitted but no interim order was granted, accordingly, writ petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 25.3.1991 directing to decide the revision within three months and till the disposal of the revision the dispossession of the petitioners were stayed. The aforementioned revision was ultimately dismissed on 15.5.1991, accordingly, writ petition has been filed by petitioner no.2 / Bharti Madhok in which interim order was granted on 13.6.1991 staying the operation of the orders dated 11.3.1991 & 15.5.1991. A notice under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act dated 27.6.1991 was issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Varanasi to the petitioners that in view of the provisions contained under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect to the aforementioned sale deed/ agreement to sale, the property in question should be vested in State Government. Petitioners filed their objection / reply dated 21.7.1991 against the aforementioned notice dated 27.6.1991 stating that dispute with respect to the aforementioned property is pending before this Court arising out of proceeding under Section 122 -B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and interim order is operating, as such, the notice issued under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be entertained. It has also been mentioned in the objection / reply that the provision under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will not apply in respect to agreement to sale. It is also specifically mentioned in the objection / reply that vendor of the sale deed do not belong to Scheduled Castes, as such, the notice issued against the petitioners is liable to be rejected. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.10.1992 directed that property in question be vested in State and possession was ordered to be taken from petitioners accordingly. Petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 28.10.1992, which was registered as Revision No.16 of 1992. The aforementioned revision was heard by the Additional Commissioner and operation of the order dated 28.10.1992 was stayed. Interim order passed by Additional Commissioner was remained in operation during pendency of the revision. Additional Commissioner vide order dated 1.7.1996 dismissed the revision. Petitioners challenged the order dated 1.7.1996 & 28.10.1992 before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No.71 of 1995-96. The Board of Revenue admitted the revision and granted interim protection staying the operation of the order dated 1.7.1996 & 28.10.1992. The Board of Revenue by final order dated