Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14358 of 2019 Petitioner :- Omkar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Rana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Pradeep Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pradeep Singh Sisodia for the caveator respondent no.5 as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
It has been submitted that in so far as the respondent no.6 is concerned, he is a proforma party not affected by the impugned order.
Under the circumstances and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the respondent no.2, the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and the order daed 29.04.2017 by respondent no.3.
Counsel for the respondent no.5 states hat he has also filed writ petition, challenging the impugned order.
The order impugned has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, respondent no.2, in proceedings drawn after issuing notice to the parties under Section 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and thereby land regarding which notice was issued has been directed to be recoded as ceiling surplus land under class 4 Ka(Kha).
Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that any transfer made, contrary to the provisions of the Act, is void.
Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides the consequences of such a void transfer.
The notice issued to the parties, which has culminated in the impugned order had been issued under the aforesaid two provisions.
The impugned order, records two categorical findings, one that the land which is subject matter of the proceedings, namely, plot no.413 having an area 3.7540 hectare, was land recorded under class 4 Ka (kha) as ceiling surplus land.
The other categorical observation made in the impugned order is that the land had been settled /leased, to one Mahendri Devi widow of Preetam Singh, under the Government Grant Act 1895.
The impugned order has been passed on the reasoning that the term of the lease would come to an end on the death of the lessee and that a will by the original lessee amounts to an illegal transfer. Therefore, exercising the powers conferred by Section 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land has been ordered to be again recorded under Class 4 ka (kha) as it was prior to the lease.
The respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order has recorded a categorical finding that there was a clear violation of the terms of the grant made in favour of Mahendri Devi under the Government Grant Act, 1895. This being the case, the proceedings should have been dawn under the provisions of the Government Grant Act, 1895.
Even otherwise, if the land was ceiling surplus land as is clear from the revenue entry, its lease in all probability, could and should have been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. However, in either case, provisions of Section 166 / 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not have been invoked by the respondents.
It would also be relevant to note that no proceedings under Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is contemplated under the said Act because no forum for any such proceeding is provided in Schedule-II to the Act. Entry no.15 in this schedule relates to Section 167 of the Act,as it existed prior to the amendment in the Act vide U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 w.e.f. 03.06.1981 when the current Section 167 was incorporated.
Under the circumstances, the order impugned is patently illegal because irrespective of whether the lease was under the provisions of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act or was a settlement under the Government Grant Act, 1895, the provisions contained under Section 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had absolutely no application and the same could not have been invoked for passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2017 as also the order dated 16.02.2019, which reiterates the findings returned by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut, respondent no.3 are hereby, set aside.
It is, however, clarified that despite the writ petition having been allowed, it shall be opened for the State-respondents to proceed against the parties either under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act or under the Government Grant Act, 1985 in case such action is required.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 RKM