Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2600 (ALL)

Ajay Pal v. State of U. P.

2012-11-05

SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.: - Heard learned counsel counsel for parties. 2. Petitioner purchased some agricultural land through sale deed dated 04.09.2000. Proceedings were initiated against him under Section 166/167/168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the form of Case No.36 of 2001, State Vs. Ajay Pal on the ground that the sale deed through which he had purchased the agricultural land was hit by Section 168-A of the Act, which prohibited transfer of fragment. The matter was decided ex-parte against the petitioner on 26.05.2001. The decision was ex parte hence petitioner filed restoration application on 13.06.2001 i.e. within three weeks. Restoration application was rejected by A.D.M. (Administration), Buland Shahar on 17.12.2005. Against the said order and the order dated 26.05.2001 petitioner filed two revisions being Revisions No.17 & 18, both of 2005-06. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut through judgment and order dated 19.09.2006 dismissed both the revisions hence this writ petition. 3. In the judgment of the revisional court it is mentioned that for getting the benefit of deletion of Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by U.P. Act No.27 of 2004, petitioner had deposited the requisite amount of Rs.600/- on 28.09.2005 for validation of the deed. The trial court did not say single word about it. The revisional court held that property had already vested in the State Government through order dated 26.05.2001, hence there was no question of validation of transfer. 4. First of all the order dated 17.12.2005 refusing to restore the case is utterly illegal. The restoration application had been filed within three weeks and ground of illness had been taken. The A.D.M. held that on earlier dates petitioner was present hence allegation that on 26.05.2001 he was ill was not correct. It is a ridiculous view. If on a particular date one is quite healthy it does not mean that he will never fall ill thereafter. 5. Section 11 termed as Special Provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No.27 of 2004) which received the assent of the Governor on 20.08.2004 and published in the U.P. Gazette dated 23.08.2004 is quoted below: "11. 5. Section 11 termed as Special Provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No.27 of 2004) which received the assent of the Governor on 20.08.2004 and published in the U.P. Gazette dated 23.08.2004 is quoted below: "11. Special Provisions.-- It is hereby declared that any transfer of a fragment which had become void under Section 168-A as it stood before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been voidable and any person may get such transfer validated by depositing such fee and within such time and in such manner as may be notified by the State Government: Provided that the above provisions shall ceased to be in force after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of this Act." 6. Thereafter, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. (Amendment) Act, 2005 (U.P. Act No.13 of 2005) was passed which received assent of the Governor on 24.03.2005 and published in the U.P. Gazette dated 29.03.2005. Section 4 of the said Act termed as Special Provision is quoted below: "4. Special Provision.-- (1) It is hereby declared that any transfer of such fragment as had become void under Section 168-A as it stood before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No.27 of 2004) and had not been entered in revenue records in favour of State Government shall be deemed to have been voidable and any person may get such transfer validated by depositing such fee and within such time and in such manner as may be notified by the State Government: Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall cease to be in force after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of this Act. (2) Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamidnari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No.27 of 2004) shall be omitted." 7. In view of Section 4 of U.P. Act No.13 of 2005 (supra), it is quite clear that if land is not entered in the revenue record in favour of State Government, in spite of order passed to the said effect, the transfer of a fragment would have been voidable until 29.03.2006 and could be validated on depositing requisite amount till then. Accordingly, even if it is held that order dated 17.12.2005 is not liable to be set aside, still petitioner was entitled to the benefit of validation under Section 4 of U.P. Act No.13 of 2005 as the land was not entered in the revenue record in favour of the State Government until petitioner deposited the amount i.e. 28.09.2005. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. 9. The trial court is directed to decide as to whether complete deposit as required by the Relevant Act (U.P. Act No.27 of 2004 and 13 of 2005) has been made or not. If requisite deposit has been made sale deed shall stand validated however if there is some deficiency in deposit then petitioner shall be directed to make good the deficiency with interest at the rate of 15% per year thereupon and after the deposit the sale deed shall stand validated.