Anita vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed against an interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 5th August 2013 whereby the records of the Court below have been summoned and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo on the spot.

The dispute appears to have arisen on account of the land having been sold by the tenure holder in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have acquired the land on the strength of a registered sale deed. This sale deed is stated to have been executed after the holding in question was made subject-matter of a declaration u/s 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The order whereof was passed on 15.9.2012.

It appears that the respondent No. 4 represented in this Court by Sri Tripathi moved an application that the said permission granted was a cover in order to allow a transaction to take place which otherwise would have been invalid as the vendor was a scheduled caste. This application was entertained and an order came to be passed against the petitioner ex-parte on 10.10.2012. Aggrieved the petitioner alongwith other vendees filed writ petition No. 1937 of 2013 which was disposed of on 19.2.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo and not to create any third party rights till the matter is decided afresh after hearing the petitioners.

The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to hear the matter and vide order dated 10.6.2013 recalled the earlier order dated 10.10.2012 and carried out a spot inspection. The matter was finally disposed of on 24.6.2013 upholding the order dated 15.9.2012 whereby the land in dispute had been made subject-matter of a declaration u/s 143 of the 1950 Act.

The respondent appears to have filed a revision against the same before the Additional Commissioner who has now passed an interim order on 5.8.2013 and aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court contending that the activities of the petitioner over the holding in question are now being interfered with on account of the said interim order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 has absolutely no claim or title, inasmuch as, he is only relying on the agreement to sell said to have been executed by the tenure holder in his favour. Not only this, a suit is stated to have been filed by the respondent No. 4 for specific performance in which no orders have been passed. In such circumstances, there being no title or semblance of claim in favour of the respondent No. 4, no application for setting aside the order u/s 143 was maintainable on his behalf.

Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner''s sale-deed is still intact and is not even otherwise subject-matter of challenge and in such circumstances, the sale-deed having been executed after the declaration u/s 143 of the Act, was a bona-fide transaction which cannot be questioned in any way by the respondent No. 4.

Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 contends that the answering respondent can contest the said proceedings keeping in view the background of the case and the fact of the manner in which the declaration was granted u/s 143 of the 1950 Act He submits that the impugned order is only an interlocutory order and does not require any interference at this stage as it does not prejudice the cause of either of the parties.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3, there does not appear to be any contest with regard to the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 only appears to be contesting his right on the basis of an agreement to sell.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be unfounded as against the rights of the respondent No. 4. The sale-deed was admittedly executed after the order was passed u/s 143 of the 1950 Act. Consequently, so far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned he may have a right if he ultimately succeeds in appropriate proceedings. The aforesaid target can only be achieved provided the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner is annulled which is not even subject-matter of challenge. In the said circumstances, the locus of the respondent No. 4 to contest the proceedings therefore may appear to be doubtful but in view of the fact that the order impugned is only an interim order, I direct that the Additional Commissioner shall without granting any further adjournments proceed to dispose of the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 on the date fixed. The writ petition is disposed of.