Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42364 of 2019 Petitioner :- Prem Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.03.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Badaun vesting plot no.117 area 0-10-11 in the State as it had been sold to the petitioner by Suraja, who had become its bhumidhar with transferable rights in accordance with Section 131B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and and Reforms Act. The sale deed had been executed without prior permission of the Collector as provided under Section 157-AA of the Act as was therefore, a void transaction.
The order dated 24.07.2007, whereby an application for recall of the order dated 05.03.2001 had been rejected and the order dated 24.08.2017, whereby the aforesaid two orders have been affirmed in revision by the respondent no.2 are also impugned.
The petitioner filed a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act claiming mutation on the basis of the sale deed executed by Suraja in his favour of plot no.117 area 0-10- 11 situated in village Puthi Sarai, Pargana and Tehsil Badaun, District Badaun.
The Tehsildar finding the sale deed to be hit by Section 157-AA of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act referred the matter to the Collector for proceeding in accordance with Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The Additional Collector upon reference, finding the sale deed to be hit by Section 157AA of the Act, as admittedly no permission was obtained by the vendor prior to execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, and that she had become bhumidhar of the said land under Section 131B of the Act, therefore, a void transaction being contrary to the provisions of the Act, ordered it to vest in the State as provided by Section 167 of the Act.
Section 166 of the Act provides that any transaction in-violation of the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act is a void transaction. Section 167 lays down, the consequence of a void transfer and provides that any property, subject matter of a void transfer, shall vest in the state, free from all encumbrances, from the date of the transanction, itself.
Aggrieved by the order vesting the land in the State vide order dated 05.03.2001 and six years later, a restoration application was filed by the petitioner.
This restoration application has been dismissed finding that the notice of the proceedings had been served upon the petitioner personally in the presence of two witnesses. It was also observed that there is no explanation for the delay in filing the restoration application. The orders aforementioned have been affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 24.07.2007.
The revisional order states that the relevant facts, namely, that the vendor had been granted a patta of the land in question and she became its bhumidhar with transferable rights in accordance with Section 131B of the Act and that she executed a sale deed of this land in favour of the petitioner without obtaining prior permission of the Collector as provided by Section 157AA of the Act, are not disputed. He therefore, found that the orders impugned in the revision to be perfectly in accordance with law.
Identical is the position before this Court. The aforenoted crucial facts for deciding the controversy are not disputed.
For the same reason, the impugned orders are perfectly justified in accordance with law.
The writ petition therefore, is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 RKM