Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2116 (ALL)

Yashoda Devi v. Collector

2004-10-26

PRADEEP KANT, RAJIV SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kant, Rajiv Sharma, JJ. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar, counsel for the State. The petitioners have challenged the Government orders and the notification referred to in the endorsement, vide Annexures-8 and 9 made in the khatauni relating to 1402-1407 fasli referred to above after requisitioning the relevant records from the Collector. Further, a prayer has been made that the respondents be restrained from making any construction over the plot in question and not to interfere with possession and use of the plot of the petitioners. 2. The dispute relates to plot No. 739 measuring 3.94 hectares (old No. 439). According to the petitioners the plot No. 739 has not been declared as vested in Gaon Sabha and it has always been In the ownership of the petitioners and, therefore, the same could not have been resumed by the Collector under the impugned order or notification. Further his pleadings are that neither any notification u/s 117(1) of the Act (U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act 1950) has been issued nor the land ever vested in the Gaon Sabha and consequently the land never belonged to Gaon Sabha and, therefore, no notification u/s 117(6) of the Act could have been issued for resumption of the said land. 3. According to the petitioners allegation the land in question originally belonged to the petitioners who were zamindars and before the date of vesting by virtue of two deeds, namely, one gift deed and the other waqf deed, the aforesaid plot, in two parts, was transferred in favour of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti. The gift deed was executed on 12.7.1949 with respect to a portion of the said plot executed by late Sri Thakur Prasad Misra with respect to his share of 5 bigha 3 biswa in favour of a registered society known as Bidhar Shiksha Samiti stipulating that the above land was transferred to the Society for establishing a school boarding house, residential house of teacher, library, play ground, agricultural work and other activities relating to the above school subject to the condition that in case the above land is not used in connection and for the purposes of school, the same will revert back to the executor or his successors. Regarding trees existing over the land it was provided that the ownership of the same will remain with the executants. Regarding trees existing over the land it was provided that the ownership of the same will remain with the executants. Likewise another registered deed was executed on 29.7.1950 by the petitioner Smt. Yashoda Devi in respect of another portion of the said plot in favour of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti, Faizabad for the purposes of the school referred to above school, subject to the same condition of reversion in case of non use of the land for the purposes connected with the school/education. 4. The petitioner's case is that on the date of vesting, i.e., 1.7.1952, no notification was issued u/s 117(1) of the Act with respect to vesting of the said land in the State or Gaon Sabha and since the Society to whom the land was transferred did not comply with the terms and conditions of the transfer deeds in as much as they did not use the land in question for the purposes of the school or education activities, the petitioners filed a Regular Suit No. 627 of 1991 against Bidhar Shiksha Samiti, Tanda, Faizabad for declaration that the aforesaid deeds are void and ineffective and the defendant be restrained from interfering with the ownership rights of the petitioners, over the land and trees in question. The said suit was later on compromised vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.1996. 5. This compromise decree was thus obtained much after the notification of resumption issued by the Collector on 12.2.1996 though the compromise appears to have been filed in the Court on 18.3.1993. 6. As a consequence of the aforesaid compromise decree the petitioners claim that the land in question reverted back in their favour and as such it never vested in Gaon Sabha and, therefore, the Collector was having no authority or jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification of resumption in exercise of powers u/s 117(6) of the Act on 12.2.1996. 7. The record reveals and as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the State that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification of 12.2.1996 as the land was never recorded in their name and they cannot be treated or declared to be intermediaries of the said land. 7. The record reveals and as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the State that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification of 12.2.1996 as the land was never recorded in their name and they cannot be treated or declared to be intermediaries of the said land. His submission is that according to the own case of the petitioners they had executed two deeds, i.e. gift deed and waqf deed, in favour of the Bidhar Shiksha Samiti as far back as in the year 1949 and in the year 1950 respectively and since then they were not in possession over the land in question. Even assuming that Bidhar Shiksha Samiti did not conform to the conditions mentioned in the gift deed and the waqf deed and did not use the land for the purposes of running school, the land did not revert back to them till date, as is evident by the fact that the petitioners had filed R. S. No. 627 of 1991 which was compromised in the year 1996, for making declaration that the gift and waqf deeds executed by the petitioners are void and ineffective. The possession over the land was not even restored to the petitioners. Further the said fact is fortified by the fact that in the year 2001 the petitioners filed a R.S. No. 103 of 2001 u/s 229B, U. P. Z. A. & L R. Act against Gaon Sabha Bidhar, State of U. P. and one Smt. Raghu Raji with the prayer that a declaration be given that the petitioners are the grove holders (Bhumidhars} having transferable rights of the land in question and the name of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti, wrongly recorded, should be expunged. In this suit Gaon Sabha and the State are also a party and they have a right to contest the case of the petitioners. The argument of the learned counsel for the State is that at no point of time the petitioners have been able to indicate that the land in question ever belonged to them on or after the date of vesting and that the two litigations mentioned above, namely, R.S. Nos. 627 of 1991 and 103 of 2001, clearly establish that the petitioners have been continuously trying to establish their claim and to get a declaration of their rights as grove holders having transferable rights {Bhumidhars). 8. 627 of 1991 and 103 of 2001, clearly establish that the petitioners have been continuously trying to establish their claim and to get a declaration of their rights as grove holders having transferable rights {Bhumidhars). 8. Apart from this it has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit by the State that on the date of vesting the land was recorded in the name of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti as 'Sankramaniya' Bhumidhars viz. with transferable rights. Bidhar Shiksha Samiti, on a proposal for establishing Industrial Training Institute in Ambedkar Nagar, passed a resolution on 21.11.1995 for granting the said land to the said institute and nominated and authorized the Chairman for granting the land for the aforesaid purposes. The then Chairman of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti Sri Ganga Saran Misra sent written information to the District Magistrate regarding the aforesaid proposal of the Samiti and in the meantime as per agenda dated 13.1.1995 a meeting of the land management committee of the revenue, village Makoiya was held on 3.12.1995 in which it was decided with the consent of all. to establish the Industrial Training Institute in pursuance of the proposal/resolution of the Bidhar Shiksha Samiti. Land Revenue Department of Makoiya and the Naib Tehsildar and the S. D. M. submitted their report in this regard, on 4.12.1995 to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, on considering the aforesaid facts including the report submitted by the revenue officers and finding that the Shiksha Samiti has granted the land for the purposes of establishing Industrial Training Institute issued the aforesaid notification resuming the said land for the purposes of aforesaid institute. Later on in pursuance of the notification dated 12.2.1996 by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, the plots in question were handed over to the Government Industrial Training Institute where building has also been constructed long back and the institute is running. 9. The question as to whether the land in question ever vested in Gaon Sabha or not for exercising of powers u/s 117(6) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act is not open to challenge by the petitioners who by their own conduct and conscientious decision have transferred the said land in favour of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti and have also delivered possession to them even prior to the date of vesting. Their silence for a period of about 42 years, i.e. for the first time when they filed R. S. No. 627 of 1991 against Bidhar Shiksha Samiti, establishes beyond doubt that they were convinced with the transfer made in favour of the Shiksha Samiti and were not at all aggrieved by their alleged inaction or non-use of the land for the school and allied activities. 10. In this suit of the year 1991 it was specifically pleaded by the petitioners that the name of Bidhar Shiksha Samiti was recorded in the revenue records and the school actually continued for about 10-15 years but thereafter the land was being used for certain other purposes which was not in accordance with the transfer deeds. Taking the facts, pleaded in the plaint, as correct and on their face value we find that though the Shiksha Samiti has violated the terms of the transfer deeds after 10-15 years and started using the land for other purposes, the petitioners took thirty years more in claiming their rights of reversion through court 12. Later on the petitioners have filed a regular suit u/s 229B against Bidhar Shikshar Samiti as well as Gaon Sabha and State and one Smt. Raghu Raji which also establishes that the petitioners were never in possession nor they had any title and were seeking the same through a suit filed in the year 2001. 13. On the date of issuance of the notification u/s 117(6) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, i.e. 12.2.1996 admittedly, the petitioners were not recorded in revenue records nor were in possession over the land in question and they are not yet recorded as such nor are in possession over the same. Bidhar Shiksha Samiti was recorded as tenure-holder with transferable rights which passed a resolution for transfer of the said land for construction of the Industrial Training Institute and the Management Committee also passed a similar resolution. The petitioners thus have no Jocus standi to challenge the said notification particularly when their case for declaration is still pending before the revenue court. 14. In view of the above, no interference, in the matter is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.