Heard Sri P.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition is directed against order dated 1.9.2005 passed by A.D.M.(Administration) Bulandshahr in case no.28 of 2004 under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act State Vs. Jaipal. Brij Pal, respondent no.4 sold his agricultural land to the petitioner on 24.1.2000. Through the impugned order sale deed was declared to be null and void on the ground that at the time of execution of the sale deed respondent no.4 was bhoomidhar with non transferable rights and he was declared as bhoomidhar with transferable right subsequently through order dated 4.3.2003 under Section 131-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act as added by U.P. Act no.19 of 1995 (w.e.f. 14.1.1995).
The order dated 1.9.2005 was challenged through revision no. 85 of 2004-05 which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut, Division Meerut. On 12.1.2006. Said order has also been challenged through this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the year 1955 land had been allotted to the father of respondent no.4, who died in 1997 and thereafter name of respondent no.4 was mutated . (Since 1362 Fasli (1955 A.D.) name of father of respondent no. 4 was entered and continuing in revenue records.) By virtue of aforesaid Section the father of respondent no.4 became bhoomidhar with transferable right on 14.1.1995 w.e.f. which U.P. Act no.19 of 1995 was inserted. The declaration granted on 4.3.2003 will relate back to 14.1.1995. Such orders are not in the nature of grant of bhoomidhari with transferable right but only a declaration to that effect which necessarily relates back to the date on which right accrued i.e. 14.1.1995 in the instant case. Accordingly, on that ground sale deed could not be cancelled or declared void.
Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside sale deed dated 24.1.2000 is held to be perfectly valid.
Writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2012 vkg