Radheshyam Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1415 of 2023 Petitioner :- Radheshyam Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Maurya I Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Sudarshan Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Mr. A.K. Maurya, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi for respondent no.7, Gaon Sabha.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 733 area 63 1/2 dismil situated in Village Parasi Khurd Pargana Majhawar Tehsil and District Chandauli was purchased by petitioner through registered sale deed executed on 28.6.2002 from respondent nos. 5 and 6. On the basis of the aforementioned sale deed, the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 15.7.2005. After about 3 years of the execution of the sale deed, an application was filed on

21.7.2005 by respondent no.4 (brother of petitioner's vendor) under Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act stating that vendor belongs to Scheduled Caste, as such, sale deed is void and property should be vested in State. On the basis of the application dated 21.7.2005, case No. 1 of 2005 under Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was registered before respondent nos. 3 and notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner filed his objection that respondent no.4 has no right to file application/objection against the sale deed dated 28.6.2002 Respondent no.3/ Additional District Magistrate, Chandauli vide order dated

24.7.2006 declared the sale as void and vested the plot in dispute in the State. Against the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by respondent no.3, petitioner filed revision before the respondent no.2, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.2.2016. Petitioner filed a restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay which was rejected by respondent no.2 vide order dated

24.11.2022. Hence this writ petition challenging the orders dated 24.11.2022 &

23.2.2016 passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dated 24.7.2006 passed by respondent no.3.

¶3Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding initiated under Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act at the instance of respondent no.4 was not maintainable. He further submitted that sale deed itself contains the recital that parties do not belong to Scheduled Caste. He further submitted that without conducting proper inquiry about the caste of the vendor, impugned order dated

24.7.2006 has been passed by respondent no.3 vesting the properties in the State. He submitted that order passed by respondent no.2 is also without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2012 (116) RD 69, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others as well as in Writ C No.18585 of 2023 Sudheer Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. and others dated 10.8.2023. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (4) ADJ 796; Smt. Sumitra Devi vs. Sushila Devi and others in order to demonstrate that respondent no.4 have no locus to challenge the execution of sale deed executed by brother of respondent No.4 in favour of petitioner. He submitted that order impugned be set aside.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that order impugned has rightly been passed by respondent no.3 vesting the property in the State Government. He further submitted that after considering the pleading of the parties, the Court has held that sale deed is void in view of violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and the restoration application was highly belated, as such, the restoration application was rightly rejected so no interference is required against impugned order.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶6There is no dispute about the fact that sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1982 by respondent nos. 5 and 6 and the sale deed contains recital that parties do not belong to Scheduled Caste community. There is no dispute about the fact that vide order of respondent no.3, the sale has been held to be void u/s 157A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and property has been vested in State Government and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

¶7In order to appreciate the controversy, the perusal of Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will be relevant which is as follow:- "[157A. Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes. - (1) Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste shall have the right to transfer any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, except with the previous approval of the Collector: Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Collector in case where the land held in Uttar Pradesh by the transfer on the date of application under this section is less than 1.26 hectares or where the area of land so held in Uttar Pradesh by the transferor on the said date is after such transfer, likely to be reduced to less than 1.26 hectares.

(2) The Collector shall, on an application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, make such inquiry as may be prescribed.]"

¶8Perusal of the order of Additional District Magistrate dated 24.7.2006 will be also relevant which is as under :- "पसतत वतद कक कतयरवतहल सतधतर पत सव० पतर वनवतसल गतम टलरक परगनत मझवतर तहसलल व हजनपद चनदझलल कद वतद पत वदनतसक 21.7.2005 पर पतरमभ हई वक रतधदशयतम पत कतजलकत नद रवसशनरतयन उफ वसशरतज पत सव० पतर व सतदतमत पत सव० पतर सद एक बनह तमत वदनतसक

28.6.2002 कक करतयत। उक ववकय ववलदख कद ववकद ततगण अनतसपवचत जतवत कद वयवक हह एवस कद तत वपछडल जतवत कत वयवक ह।ह ववकय ववलदख तहरलर वकयद जतनद सद पवप र वनयमतनतसतर अनतमवत नहह पत् कक गयल रल अतय उक ववकय ववलदख कक शपनय घकवषत वकयत जतय। वतद दजर कर ववपकलगण कक नकवटस-सममन जतरल वकयत गयत। ववपकल कक आपजत वदनतसक 2.3.2006 पत् हहई। आपजत मम कहत गयत ह ह वक उसनद वसशनरतयन उफर वसशरतज व सतदतमत पत गण सव० पतर वनवतसलगण टलरक सद भपवम कय वकयत ह।ह वतदल कत उक भपवम सद ककई समबनध नहह ह।ह अतय वतद यकजजत करनद कत ककई अजधकतर नहह ह ह वतद पत तलन वषर बतद पसतत वकयत गयत ह।ह कतलबतजधत हकनद कद कतरण भल वतदपत सवलकतर वकयद जतनद यकगय नहह ह।ह ववकद ततगण जतवत कद कहतर हह जक अनतसपवचत जतवत म म नहह म मआतद ह जक वपछडल जतवत मम आतद ह इसजलयद ववकद ततगण न द अपनद कक अनतसपवचत जतवत कत न हकनत मकहत ह।ह कहतर जतवत कद लकग अनतसपवचत जतवत कक शदणल म नहह आत द ह।ह ववकय पत सतफ पतक ह।ह वकसल कक आपजत करनद कत अजधकतर नहह ह।ह वतदल कद ववदतन अजधकत नद अपनद तकर मम कहत वक ववकय ववलदख कद ववकद ततगण अनतसपवचत जतवतस कद सदसय ह म और बनह तमत तहरलरल कद वदनतसक कक उनकद पतस 1.26 हदकटदयर सद कम भपवम रहल। भपवम ववकय सद पपवर जजलतजधकतरल सद अनतमवत पत् वकयत जतनत आवशयक रत। ऐसत न करकद ववकद ततगण दतरत वनयमो कत उलसघन वकयत गयत। ववकय पत शपनय घकवषत वकयद जतनद कत वनवद न वकयत गयत। पवतवतदलगण कद ववदतन अजधवकत नद तकर मम कहत वक बनह तमत तहरलरल वदनतसक कक ववकद ततगणस अनतसपवचत जतवत कक शदणल म म नहह आतद रद उक अवजध म म व वपछडल जतवत कक शदणल म म र द जजस कतरण ववकय हदतत अनतमवत जलयद जतनद कक आवशयकतत नहह रल। वतद पत तलन वषर बतद पसतत वकयत गयत ह।ह कतलबतजधत हकनद कद कतरण वतद पत सवलकतर वकयद जतनद यकगय नहह ह।ह वतद पत वनरसत वकयद जतनद कत वनवद न वकयत गयत। पततवलल पर उपलबध सतकयो एवस उभय पको कद तकर सद यह सपष हह वक शल वसशनरतयन व सतदतमत पत गण सव० पतर वनवतसलगण टलरक परगनत मझवतर तहसलल व जनपद चनदझलल अनतसपवचत जतवत कद वयवक ह।म सतधतर वशकतयतकततर/वतदल उनहह कद पररवतर व जतवत कत वयवक ह।ह सतधतर नद इस आशय कत अपनत जतवत पमतण पत पसतत वकयत हह वक वह भल ववपकलगणो रतधदशयतम, वसशनरतयन, सतदतमत कक जतवत कद पररवतर ह।ह सतदतमत, वसशनरतयन दतरत वदनतसक 28.6.2002 कक गतम परतसल खदत र परगनत मझवतर तहसलल व जनपद चनदझलल ससरत अपनलauthorities भपवम गतटत सस० 733 रकबत 63 ½ वडस. कत ववकय पत रतधदशयतम पत कतजलकत वनवतसल परतसल खदत र कद पक म म वनषपतवदत वकयत ह।ह यह ववकय/अनतरण वबनत कलदकटर कक पवप र अनतमवत कद वकयत गयत ह ह जक उतर पददश जमहदतरल ववनतश एवस भपवम वयवसरत अजधवनयम कक धतरत 157 क कद पतववधतनो कद ववपरलत ह।ह अतय पशनगत मबनह तमत व अनतरण शपनय ह।ह पतववधतनो कद ववपरलत ववककत समपजत रतजय सरकतर म वनवहत हकनद यकगय ह।ह आददश‌ अतय ववकय ववलदख वदनतसक 28.6.2002 बतवत आरतजल नस० 733 रकबत 63 ½ वडसवमल ससरत मझजत परतसल खदत र परगनत मझवतर तहसलल व जनपद चनदझलल शपनय घकवषत वकयत जततत ह।ह उक ववकय ववलदख दतरत ववककत आरतजल रतजय सरकतर मम वनवहत कक जततल ह।ह आददश कक पमतवणत पवत उप-वनबनधक चनदझलल व तहसललदतर चनदझलल कक पवद षत हक। बतद आवशयक कतयरवतहल इस नयतयतलय कक पततवलल दतजखल दफतर हक। वदनतसकय24.7.2006 आर.आर. जससह अपर जजलतजधकतरल चनदझलल, जनपद चनदझलल। मआददश वदनतसवकत हसततकररत मदर द दतरत खलत द नयतयतलय म उदकवषत। वदनतसकय 24.7.2006 आर.आर. लसनह

अपरलजलवलधकवरहचनददलह,

जनपदचनददलह।"

¶9Paragraph Nos. 21 to 25 of the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) will be also relevant for perusal which is as under :- "21. A plain and simple reading of Section 3(4) of the Act and Sections 14, 14-A and 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act makes it clear that the Collector includes Additional Collector as well as Assistant Collector and is authorised to discharge the powers and duties conferred upon him under the Act or in any other law in force. The aforesaid Acts do not confer upon the Collector the power to declare a transaction to be void under Section 166 of the Act being violative of Section 154 or 157-A of the Act. Such power is vested only in the Assistant Collector First Class who may be authorised by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector but converse to it is not permitted. The duties and functions assigned therein to the Assistant Collector First Class under law are not to be discharged by the Collector even though he may be the controlling authority of the Assistant Collectors First Class. He is not authorised to take over the functions assigned to the Assistant Collectors. Thus, Collector is not supposed to discharge the functions specifically assigned to the Assistant Collectors under the above two Acts including that of declaring a transfer to be void.

¶22Apart from the above the initial order which was challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner was passed by the Assistant Collector First Class and, therefore, also on the order being set-aside in appeal, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class.

¶23Accordingly, I answer the question by holding that the Assistant Collector First Class is the competent authority to declare any transaction of agricultural land void under Section 166 of the Act, if it is in contravention of Section 154 and 157-A of the Act or as a matter of fact,of any other provision of the Act.

¶24In such a situation, the Additional Commissioner committed an error of law in remanding the matter to the Collector.

¶25The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.8.2010 is modified to the extent that the matter stands remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class in place of the Collector as directed. "

¶10In another case Sudhir Kumar Jain (Supra), this Court after following the ratio of law laid down by Rakesh Kumar (Supra) has held that property cannot be vested in State Government under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the Collector/Additional Collector.

¶11In the instant matter, order dated 24.7.2006 declaring the sale deed as void and vesting the plot in dispute in State has been passed by respondent no.3, Additional District Magistrate, Chandauli who is not competent to pass the order in view of the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) and Sudheer Kumar Jain (Supra) as quoted above. Vendor himself has not filed any application/ complaint in respect to sale deed executed on 28.6.2002.

¶12It is also material that in the instant matter, no proper enquiry has been conducted regarding the caste of the vendor although the sale deed itself contains recital that vendor do not belong to Scheduled Caste. The relevant recital of the sale deed are as follows:- "

नबकरपत --

सरकवरहमवललरत-1,59,000/- रपरव। लकनदकन-1,52,400/- रपरव। सटवमप-12720/-रपरव।

सरकवरहरकट-2500/-

रपरवपनतनड०। पररजन-

ककनषकवररहकतत।

हमनकवनशनरवरनवसतदवमवपतगणसव०पतरननववसहगण ------

नटररपर०कवरवपरगनवमझववरतहसहलवलजलवचनददलह।-- नवककतव/

पथमपक

वरवधकशरवमपतकवललकवननववसहपरवसहखतदरपरगनवमझववरतहसहलवलजलवचनददलह। - - - ककतव/

नदतहरपक ---

नवककतवगणअनत

. जवनत

/

जनजवनतककनहहहब।

वकशतदवभसनमककबववतइसककपहलककरईअनतबनध

तहरहरनहहहहआहब। ----

वकशतदवभसनमककनषभसनमहबऔरककनषकवररहकततकरनकरवजवरहवहबसडकसक500

महटरसककवरक

अलधकदसरहपरससथतहब।

तहरहरतवरहख28.6.2002"

¶13Revisional orders passed by Additional Commissioner are based on technical grounds, as such, the same are also arbitrary and cannot be maintained in the eye of law.

¶14Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (Supra), the impugned order dated

24.7.2006 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 24.11.2022 as well as

23.2.2016 passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed, however, the proper authority can proceed afresh in proper manner after conducting proper enquiry regarding the caste of the parties in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.11.2023/ Vandana Y. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad