Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 25641 of 2000 Petitioner :- Hawaldar And Another Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Malviya,Om Prakash Sharma,Ram Anuj Prajapati,S.N.S. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,L.S. Yadav,Ramashray Tripathi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri S.R.Yadav holding brief of Shri Om Prakash Sharma, counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ramashray Tripathi, counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as 'D.D.C') i.e. the respondent no.1 in Revision No.1452 registered under Section 48 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953).
During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioners pressed the writ petition only against that part of the order dated 15.5.2000 whereby the sale deed dated 18.1.2000 has been declared void by the D.D.C as violative of Section 168-A of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950) as the sale deed resulted in fragmentation. It has been argued that the sale deed was not violative of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 in as much as through the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioner no. 2 sold the property to petitioner no.1 who had a contiguous plot. It has also been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were never given any notice by the D.D.C. to defend the sale deed dated 18.1.2000 and in their revision, the respondents have also not taken up any case challenging the sale deed dated 18.1.2000. It has been argued that the order dated 15.5.2000 to the extent it declares the sale deed dated 18.1.2000 is violative of principles of natural justice as it has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to defend the sale deed.
I have perused the memorandum of revision instituting Revision No.1452 annexed as (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition). A reading of the memorandum of revision shows that the respondents had not taken up any case regarding the validity of the sale deed dated 18.1.2000. Further, a reading of the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the D.D.C also shows that the issue regarding validity of the sale deed dated 18.1.2000 was not necessary for a decision of Revision No.1452 as the re-arrangement of Chaks as made by the D.D.C vide his order dated 15.5.2000 was not dependent on the validity or invalidity of the sale deed dated 18.1.2000. Further, the contents of the order dated 15.5.2000 also show that there is no recital in the said order regarding any opportunity having been given to the petitioners to bring forward the facts necessary to defend the validity of the sale deed dated 18.1.2000, eg., the fact that petitioner no.1 who is the vendee had plots contiguous to the plots included in the sale deed dated 18.1.2000. It is apparent that the petitioners had no notice that the validity of the sale deed dated 18.1.2000 was also under consideration of the D.D.C. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 15.5.2000 is in violation of the principles of nature justice.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the D.D.C in Revision No.1452 so far as it declares the sale deed dated 18.1.2000 executed by petitioner no. 2 in favour of petitioner no.1 as void and the plots to have vested in the Gaon Sabha is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the D.D.C to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent stated above.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 IB