Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
The petitioner, Deep Chand executed a sale deed in relation to Plot No. 521 on 8th October, 1985. The submission of the petitioner in paragraph-5 of the writ petition is that the sale deed is void as it was in relation to a fragment of a land as defined under Section 168-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Accordingly, the mutation was not carried out. Ratan Lal, the father of respondent no. 4, Mahesh Chand, filed an application and an order was passed on 9th July, 1987 holding that the provisions of Section 168 would not be attracted and there was no violation of Section 168-A. The notice that had been issued was accordingly dropped.
The petitioner, who is the vendor, filed an application before the Additional Collector stating therein that the order had been obtained by the respondent no.4 without bringing correct facts to the notice of the authority and that the respondent no.4 has erroneously got his name recorded, hence the order dated 9th July, 1987 be recalled and set aside.
The application moved by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 9th July, 1987 was rejected on the ground of limitation as it had been filed eight years, eight months and sixteen days and no satisfactory explanation had been given in this regard. It was also recorded that the order dated 9th July, 1987 had been passed after giving opportunity to the parties. This order dated 27th May, 1998 was assailed before the Additional Commissioner, who also rejected the same on 11th August, 1999. Against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed as not maintainable being a second revision, hence this petition.
Sri Tyagi submits that the impugned orders are erroneous and the orders being ex-parte, the same deserve to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Sri Gupta submits that the answering respondent had his adjoining Chak over Khasra No. 518 belonging to him and his brother Murli and accordingly the petitioner vide sale dated 8.10.1985 transferred fifteen Biswas of land out of Chak No. 521 to the father of the answering respondent. The petitioner never challenged the execution of the sale deed. On the contrary, the petitioner turned dishonest and he moved an application that the proceedings should be initiated as the transfer amounted to a transfer of a fragment of land, hence was invalid. On coming to know about the same, the answering respondent moved before the Additional Collector and orders were passed. Accordingly, the name of the father of the answering respondent was also mutated on 18.8.1987 and while passing the order dated 9th July, 1987, there was full compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is only the dishonest intention of the petitioner which was reflected in the proceedings that were sought to be pursued by him. Even otherwise, assuming if the land was a fragment then too it would vest in the State and petitioner would not gain anything to the contrary. It has also been submitted that as a matter of fact, the State Government has issued Notifications that in case, there is a fragmentation then the same can be regularized by making certain deposits and, therefore, the sale deed would not be void.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the counter and rejoinder affidavits, it is evident that the rights of the petitioner stood extinguished with the execution of the sale deed. The petitioner had never challenged the sale deed, as such it appears that the petitioner has somehow the other tried to cause damage to the answering respondent for no valid reason. The petitioner would not stand to gain anything except causing sheer harassment to the respondent no.4. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner would not stand to gain anything appears to be correct.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to make out any case for interference in view of the facts that have been brought on record and the findings recorded by the authorities, I am not inclined to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted earlier stands discharged.
Order Date :- 21.9.2011 Shiraz Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 16195 of 2000 Petitioner :- Deep Chand Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Tyagi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,C.B. Singhal Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Dismissed.
For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.
Order Date :- 21.9.2011 Shiraz