The Collector lacks jurisdiction to declare agricultural land transactions void; such authority is vested in the Assistant Collector First Class as per relevant sections of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 0506 of 2016, Computer Case No. 2016112700506 (State vs. Smt. Madhvi Maheshwari and others) under sections 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 during the pendency of the instant writ petition (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)."

3. Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in dispute i.e. the subject matter of the sale deed dated 01.04.2008 and 17.03.2008 have been illegally vested in the State under the impugned orders passed by the Collector in proceedings under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 inasmuch as the orders are completely without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Case of Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2023 (161) RD 222 inasmuch as in the said decision it has been held that the Collector is not competent to pass an order vesting the land in the State and it is only the Assistant Collector First Class who is vested with the said powers.

4. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State/Respondents and also Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha do not dispute the proposition canvassed by Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as also the decision reported in 2023 (161) RD 222 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Upon perusal of the decision reported in 2023 (161) RD 222 , I find that the said decision is based upon a decision of this Court reported in 2012 (116) RD 69 ( Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others ) decided on 28.02.2012. This Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (Supra) while considering the provisions of Section 3 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the provisions of Sections 14 , 14-A and 15 of the UP Land Revenue Act has held that the Assistant Collector, First Class, is the Competent Authority to decide any transaction of agricultural land to be void under Section 166 of the Act, it is in contravention of Section 15 4 and 157-A of the Act or for that any provision of the Act. The decision further held that the Collector or Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order in the proceedings under Section 166 /167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The relevant portion of the decision is being quoted hereunder:

"21. A plain and simple reading of section 3(4) of the Act and sections 14, 14-A and 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act makes it clear that the Collector includes Additional Collector as well as Assistant Collector and is authorised to discharge the powers and duties conferred upon him under the Act or in any other law in force. The aforesaid Acts do not confer upon the Collector the power to declare a transaction to be void under section 166 of the Act being violative of section 154 or 157A of the Act. Such power is vested only in the Assistant Collector First Class who may be authorised by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector but converse to it is not permitted. The duties and functions assigned therein to the Assistant Collector First