1. Heard Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. The impugned order has been passed vesting land in question in the State under Section 167 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1950") holding that execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner of the land in question was in violation of Section 157-AA of Act, 1950 hence the sale deed was void vide Section 166 of Act, 1950 and in consequence thereof the land vested in State Government under Section 167.
3. It is not in dispute that seller and purchaser in respect to land in question both belong to Scheduled caste. The land in question was a lease land which was declared transferable on 27.01.2000. An application was submitted before the Deputy Collector seeking approval for sale of land to petitioner whereupon Tehsildar recommended for grant of approval on 27.01.2000 and on the same date Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed order, marked on file "permitted". Consequently, sale deed was executed on 31.01.2000.
4. The authorities in question have held that the above permission was not conveyed to parties by separate order and there appears to be some overwriting on the record relating to 'approval', therefore, said approval was not valid and hence there was no approval in law. Section 157-AA and the entire transaction was void ab initio. Alongwith counter affidavit a photocopy of the page of file pertaining to approval has appended as Annexure-CA-1. It shows that a note was submitted by some official on the application submitted by parties seeking approval for orders of Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The said report is signed by some official whose designation is not separately mentioned but under the signature date 25.01.2000 is mentioned. The year 2000 appears to be corrected from 2001. Thereafter there is a recommendation of Tehsildar which he has signed putting the date as 27.01.2000 which is very clear and there is no overwriting or cutting at all. The third signature is of Sub-Divisional Magistrate mentioning the word "permitted" and under his signature also the date is mentioned as 27.01.2000 which is also very clear and admits no doubt.
5. Learned Standing Counsel having perused the same also could not dispute.
6. In the circumstances, there was no occasion to doubt that said recommendation was granted on 27.01.2000 and there was no overwriting or cutting on the date mentioned under the signatures of Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This aspect has been ignored by the authorities concerned and passed the impugned orders for the reasons best known to them. It appears that either they have not gone through the original record or have passed impugned orders on the basis of mere information.
7. Now the second question, whether separate written order communicating approval is necessary when compliance of Section 157-AA would not come into existence.
8. Sub-section 4 of Section 157-AA reads as under:
"155-AA. (4) No transfer under this section shall be made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned."
9. When land is transferred amongst the persons belong to same caste, i.e., Scheduled Caste, sub-section 1, by itself, does not lay any restriction but sub-section 4 requires "prior approval" of Assistant Collector. It does not talk of any "order of approval". If an approval has been granted by Assistant Collector may be on file, and is within the knowledge of parties concerned, whereafter they have proceeded to transfer the land, in my view, it cannot be said that transaction is not in accordance with Section 157-AA of Act, 1950. The manner in which respondents have read this 'approval' amounts to reading certain words in the aforesaid provision which were not there. The Lagislature has worded particular provision in a particular manner. The same has to be read as it is and no word is to be added therein unless it is extremely necessary to make it. The principle of interpretation provides that language of a statute must be read as it is and not in a manner so that it has expressed something which is not there.
10. The purpose and objective of this provision is to protect the weaker section of society from any possible victimization. The power to check upon the executive authority has been conferred so that no powerful man may take advantage of lack of bargaining power of weaker section and property of weaker section may not exchange hands compelled by their poverty and downtroddenness. The statute, where the language is very clear, cannot be stressed to an extent that instead of protecting the person for whose benefit the provision has been made, it become a tool of harassment in the hands of scrupulous and mischievous persons. Therefore, the view I have taken, as discussed above, in my view, not only satisfy the requirement of law but also protect the person for whose benefit provision has been made and also take care of the mischief, lagislature wanted to remove.
11. In the circumstances, it is evident that impugned orders have been passed by the authorities on certain misconception, misconstruction of statute and also without perusing the original record.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.11.2003 and 30.05.2003 are hereby set aside. The petitioner is also entitled to costs which is quantified to Rs. 10,000/-. The costs may be paid at the first instance by respondent no. 7 to petitioner but it shall have the liberty to recover the same from official concerned who were posted at the relevant time in the office of respondents no. 1 and 2 by initiating disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 4.5.2011 AK