Hukam Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Heard Sri V. B. Yadav for the petitioners, Standing Counsel for State of UP, Sri Mahesh Narain Singh Standing Counsel for gram panchayat and Sri Navin Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-5.

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Collector dated 18.7.2016 passed in the proceeding under Section 166/167 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), confiscating the right of the petitioners and vesting the land in dispute under the transfer in State of UP and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 24.12.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

The petitioner purchased plot no. 21 M area 0.506 hectare of village Murtazabad Bhatwara, tehsil and district Bulandshahar through sale deed dated 8.10.1999 from Jagdish, who had acquired bhumidhar with transferable right under Section 131 B of the Act. Thereafter Rajendra Singh, respondent-5 filed an application before the Collector that sale deed dated 8.10.1999 was in violation of the provisions of Section 157 AA of the Act as such the sale deed is void and property is liable to be vested in State of UP . On the application of Rajendra Singh, the case was registered as Case No. 1/2016 under Section 166/167 of the Act before the Collector. Notices have been issued to the transferor as well as transferee both. The petitioner, who is transferee appeared in pursuance of the notice and filed his objection before the court below, in which he has stated that the petitioner as well as Jagdish both belong to Scheduled Caste as such prior permission of Collector was not required to be taken and the sale deed is not void. On the basis of sale deed his name was mutated by the order of Consolidation Officer, over the land in dispute. The proceeding is not maintainable and it is liable to be dropped. The matter was heard by the Additional Collector, who by the order dated 18.7.2016 found that as the necessary permission as required under Section 157 AA of the Act has not obtained as such the sale deed is void as Jagdish acquired bhumidhar with transferable right over the land in dispute under Section 131 B of the Act. Accordingly, he directed that plot no. 21 M area 0.506 hectare be vested in State of UP, free from all encumbrances. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 24.12.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the transferor namely Jagdish as well as transferee namely Hukum Singh and Mukesh, the petitioners, both belong to the Scheduled Caste as such no prior permission of Collector is required as held by this Court in Writ C No. 22508 of 2007 (Ramey Vs. State of UP and others) decided on 19.1.2015. The judgements of Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner are contrary to the judgment of this Court and are liable to be set aside.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner in this respect. It is not disputed that Jagdish acquired bhumidhar with transferable right under Section 131 B of the Act. Under Section 157 AA of the Act, itself , a complete restriction has been imposed for transferee of the land on which bhumidhar with transferable right has been acquired, according to the provisions of Section 131 B of the Act, to the person not belonging to Scheduled Caste. So far as transfer to a person belongs to Scheduled Caste is concerned, Section 157 AA (4) of the Act provides that no transfer under this Section shall be made except with the previous approval of Assistant Collector concerned. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Ramey (supra) has not taken notice of sub-Section 4 of Section 157 AA of the Act as such it is per incurium and had no binding effect.

Second argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that the consolidation proceeding is going on as such objection ought to have been filed before the consolidation authorities and the proceeding before the Collector is not maintainable. Since the proceeding under Section 166/167 of the Act could not be filed before the consolidation authorities as such provisions of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in the village will not affect the proceeding. In any case, this issue has not been raised before the Collector. So far as , in the revision a ground has been raised without mentioning any thing as to when the village has been notified under Section 4 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. So far as the sale deed in violation of provisions of UP Act No.1 of 1951 is concerned, by virtue of Section 166 of the Act, such a sale deed is void and the property is vested in State of UP under Section 167 , sub-section 2 of the Act. The interest of transferor is extinguished under Section 189 of the Act. Thus the land is vested in State of UP on the date of execution of sale deed itself.

So far as the other argument that Rajendra Singh, has no locus standi, is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter on this ground alone for the reason that the application filed by Rajendra Singh has been treated as the notice to the Collector and the Collector is competent to take the proceeding in the matter and pass suitable order.

No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.