Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
LOK PAL SINGH, J.
State of Uttarakhand – Petitioner
Versus
Amandeep Singh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2180 (M/S) of 2018
Decided On : 28-07-2020
UPZA&LR Act - Sale Deed - Section 152-A - 143 - 144 - 171 - 172 - 174 - 175 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 152-A, 143, 144, 171, 172, 174, and 175 of the UPZA&LR Act. It highlighted the legal provisions related to the execution of power of attorney for transfer of land, use of holding for industrial or residential purposes, and the definition of 'land' under the Act. The court emphasized the effect of non-declaration and declaration of land under Section 143 of the Act and its impact on the applicability of the Act to the property in question. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner State sought to set aside an order passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, regarding the sale deed executed in violation of Section 152-A of the UPZA&LR Act. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 purchased the suit property, and subsequent legal proceedings ensued, leading to conflicting judgments. The petitioner alleged that the sale deed was null and void, while the respondents contested the case, claiming their rights under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was not executed in violation of Section 152-A of the UPZA&LR Act, as the property in question did not fall within the purview of the Act. It also noted the failure of the Assistant Collector to make a declaration under Section 143 of the Act, which impacted the applicability of the Act to the property. The court emphasized that the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not an appealable remedy and can only be used in exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed, the applicability of Section 152-A of the UPZA&LR Act, and the failure of the Assistant Collector to make a declaration under Section 143 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of the UPZA&LR Act, particularly Section 152-A and 143, and the impact of non-declaration and declaration of land under Section 143 on the applicability of the Act to the property. The court also emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 as a remedy and the need to prove manifest miscarriage of justice for its invocation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
LOK PAL SINGH, J.
1. By way of instant writ petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner State seeks to set aside the order dated 26.03.2018, passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in Revision No. 166/2017-18, Amandeep Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others.
2. Facts leading to filing of present writ petition are that respondent nos. 1 and 2 purchased the suit property from Board of Methodist Church in India through Power of Attorney Sri Aman Jassoriya through registered sale deed dated 19.01.2009. Some persons namely, Richard Wheeler and Puran Singh instituted suits against the State of Uttarakhand and others for declaration of their right under Section 229B of the UPZA&LR Act, claiming their adverse possession on the suit property. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit property includes two residential houses and land appurtenant thereto which is recorded in the name of American Methodist Mission, which was subsequently purchased by Respondent nos. 1 and 2 from Board of Methodist Church in India through registered sale deed. Thereafter, the names of respondent nos. 1 and 2 were recorded in the revenue records vide mutation order dated 15.04.2010, passed by Tehsildar, Almora in mutation case no. 253/2008-09 in column nos. 7 to 12 of the aforesaid khatauni.
3. One of the litigant namely Awdhesh Kumar Verma, who lost the civil cases against respondent nos. 1 and 2, preferred Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 36208-36209 of 2013, Awdhesh Kumar Verma vs. American Methodist Mission. Initially, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order on 25.08.2017:
A copy of the final order be brought on record to this Court before the next date.
List the matters on 4th December, 2017.”
4. Aforementioned Special Leave Petitions (Civil) were finally decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2017. The same is reproduced hereunder:
On 25th August 2017, the following order was passed:
“Learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand states that proceedings pending before the State-Authorities will be concluded within a period of two months from today. It will be open to the parties to present their view points before the concerned authority in accordance with law.
A copy of the final order be brought on record to this Court before the next date.
List the matters on 4th December, 2017.”
It has been brought to our notice that two orders have been passed. One, dated 30th July, 2017, by the Assistant Collector (1st Class), Sadar, Almora and another dated 30th November, 2017 by the Revenue Council, Dehradun.
In view of above two orders, no order is necessary on the special leave petitions and the contempt petition. Accordingly, the same stand disposed of.
If any party is aggrieved by the above orders, the same may be challenged before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
5. The petitioner-State instituted a Revenue Case No. 01/2015-16 against respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the sale deed dated 19.01.2009 has been executed exercising the Power of Attorney executed by Board of Methodist Church in India in favour of Aman Jassoriya. It is contended that since the sale deed has been executed in violation of Section 152-A of the UPZA&LR Act, therefore, the sale deed is null and void and the property is liable to be vested in the State of Uttarakhand and an order in this regard be passed.
6. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 contested the case. Learned Assistant Collector, First Class, Almora vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 allowed the application filed by
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
