JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments and order contained in Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 to the writ petition, whereby the land of the petitioners was vested in the State under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the Collector and the said order of Collector was affirmed in revision by the Commissioner. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a person named Rulha, son of Chhotu claiming himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste has moved an application purporting to be under Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of the permission dated 27-1-1987, which was granted in favour of the opposite parties, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 5 and 6. It was pleaded in the application that the applicant is Bhumidhar of Plot No. 60, area 7 Bigha and that the opposite parties are not members of the Scheduled Case but are Saini by caste. The opposite parties by playing fraud upon the court and by getting a fake thumb impression mark of the applicant put on the application obtained permission to sell 1/3rd of the land belonging to the applicant and on the basis thereof, the sale deed was got executed on 18-2-1987 which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Roorkee. The applicant also claimed that he had never made any such application for permission to sell the land. It was also contended that after sale of 1/3rd part, the remaining land remains less than the statutory limit of 3,1/8 Acre, therefore, the permission for sale is illegal and void against the provisions of Section 157-A of the said Act. The application of the applicant Rulha was registered in the Court of Additional Collector as Case No. 3/95-1996. 4. It appears that during the pendency of the case, applicant Rulda had died and therefore, he was substituted by his legal heirs Karn Singh and Ajay Kumar (minors) through their mother Smt. Atarkali and an additional paragraph no. 3-A was added to the application, wherein Karn Singh and others were said to be legal heirs of the deceased. 5. Both the parties were heard by the Additional Collector Haridwar. 3-A was added to the application, wherein Karn Singh and others were said to be legal heirs of the deceased. 5. Both the parties were heard by the Additional Collector Haridwar. The opposite parties, respondent nos. 5 and 6 raised an objection that the application has been moved belatedly and no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay. The applicant had moved an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and had accompanied the medical certificate issued by the Medical Practitioner. Delay in moved the application was condoned and the application was heard on merits by the Additional Collector. 6. The learned Additional Collector after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that no affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite parties in support of their objection. It has been observed that the application of the applicant Rulha is supported by an affidavit and that the applicant also prayed for comparing the thumb impression mark by handwriting expert, therefore, the learned Additional Collector has held that the application of the applicant was liable to be allowed and the permission to sell is liable to be recalled. Consequently, by the order dated 24-1-2000, the permission dated 27-1-1987 was recalled and the application of the applicant was allowed. 7. The applicant Rulha son of Chhotu also filed a suit against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein for cancellation of sale dated 18-2-1987 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hardiwar, which was registered as O.S. No. 228 of 1993. In the plaint, the plaintiff Rulha, son of Chhotu has taken the same ground for cancellation of the sale deed as were taken by him for cancellation of permission. The suit was registered by the respondent nos. 5 and 6-defendants by filing their written statement on the ground that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed in question and that the defendants had paid sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and got the sale deed executed and that the plaintiff with conscious mind put his thumb impression mark on the stamp papers. It was denied that the sale deed in question is a void document. It was also asserted that the plaintiff had obtained due permission to sell on 27-1-1987. It has been denied that the sale deed in question is the outcome of a conspiracy and fraud. It was denied that the sale deed in question is a void document. It was also asserted that the plaintiff had obtained due permission to sell on 27-1-1987. It has been denied that the sale deed in question is the outcome of a conspiracy and fraud. It was also denied that the plaintiff was ill and incapacitated for the last 10 years. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 11 issues in the suit. They are as under: 1. Whether the sale deed dated 18-2-198 7 is forged and liable to be cancelled on the grounds mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the plaint? 2. Whether the plaint if after receiving a sum of Rs. 14,500/- from the defendants on 18-2-1987 got the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintif is barred by Sections 34, 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act? 4. Whether the defendants can be given benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the defendants are in possession of the disputed property? 7. To what relief, if any, is the plaint if entiled? 8. Whether the suit is barred by Section 171 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act? 9. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of acquiescence and law of estopple? 10. Whether the suit is barred by Order 32, Rule 3 C.P.C.? 11. Whether the suit is barred by Order 6, Rule 15 C.P.C. 9. The plaintiff adduced documentary as well as oral evidence in the suit. On behalf of the defendants, no document has been filed in evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and one Santar Pal, P.W.2 in oral evidence, while the defendants examined Rup Ram as D.W.1 in the suit. 10. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Rulha had died. He was substituted by his legal heirs, the present petitioners on the basis of will executed by Rulha in his life time. 11. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the evidence, took Issue Nos. 1 and 2 together. 10. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Rulha had died. He was substituted by his legal heirs, the present petitioners on the basis of will executed by Rulha in his life time. 11. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the evidence, took Issue Nos. 1 and 2 together. The learned trial Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence came to the conclusion that the allegations made in paragraph no.4 by the plaintiff are proved and has held that the sale deed in question is forged and liable to be cancelled. It was also held that the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff after receiving Rs.14,500/- did execute the sale deed in question. Both the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were also decided against the defendants. Ultimately on Issue No.7, it has been held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute and not the defendants and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for cancellation of sale deed by the judgment and decree dated 15-7-2000. 12. An application was also moved on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh with a prayer that the land of plot no. 60 area 2-6-13,1/3 Bigha be vested in the State, alleging that Rulha son of Chhotu was the Bhumidhar of the disputed land with transferable rights; that said Rulha executed the sale deed of the disputed land on 28-1-1987 by obtaining permission dated 27.1.1987 under Section 157-A of the Z.A. and L.R.Act since the purchasers Baleshwar and Smt. Santosh were the members of Saini caste and were not members of the Scheduled Caste. The permission dated 27.1.1987 had been cancelled by the Additional Collector by order dated 24.1.2000. It was alleged that the provisions of Section 157-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R.Act have been violated and therefore, the land in dispute stood vested in the State w.e.f. 28-1-1987. The application was opposed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that the sale deed dated 28-1-1987 was executed after obtaining permission by Rulha son of Chhotu under Section 157-A and on the disputed land, they are in possession. The application was opposed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that the sale deed dated 28-1-1987 was executed after obtaining permission by Rulha son of Chhotu under Section 157-A and on the disputed land, they are in possession. On behalf of the petitioners herein, objection was filed on the ground that the alleged permission dated 27.1.1987 was obtained by fraud and fraudulently, which was ultimately cancelled by the Additional Collector by his order dated 24-1-2000, therefore, the land in dispute cannot vest in the Stat Government. No sale deed was executed by Rulha. In support of their case, the petitioners filed copy of order passed by the Additional Cllector and the copy of the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2000 passed in O.S. No. 228 of 1993. 13. The learned Collector after hearing the parties did not find favour with the contention of the petitioners and has held that the permission dated 27.1.1987 was cancelled by order dated 24.1.2000 and since the decree of cancellation of sale deed has been passed subsequent to 24.1.2000 by the Civil Court, then the decree of cancellation could have been taken into consideration and believed. Ultimately, it was held by order dated that the provisions of Section 157-A has been violated because the permission dated 27-1-1987 had been cancelled before the execution of sale-deed dated 28.1.1987. 14. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Revision No. 7 of 2000-2001 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Camp Dehradun. The learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision on the same ground as held by the learned Collector, Haridwar dated 10-1-2001. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 15. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners are members of the Scheduled Caste and that Sri Rulha was their predecessor and Bhumidhar of 1.434 Hectares of land of Khata No. 60 of village Jaswalala Pargana Roorkee, Tehsil and District Hardwar and it is also not disputed that a sale deed dated 18-2-1987 was got executed under the alleged permission for sale dated 27-1-1987 obtained under Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 16. 16. For a just decision of the case, a reference to Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is necessary, which reads as under: “157-A. Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Cases.-(1) Without prejudice to the restriction 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 transferor 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.” 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Collector dated 10.1.2001 is perverse and unsustainable. Learned Collector has committed a manifest error of law in holding that on account of cancellation of permission, the land stood vested in the State Government on 28-1-1987. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Collector lost sight of the fact that the order of cancellation of permission granted in the case at hand by the Additional Collector was passed only when an application was made by the alleged transferor Rulha on the ground that he had not made any such application for permission to sell on 27.1.1987 before the Collector concerned and that he had also disputed his thumb impression made on the application and prayed that the thumb impression on the application, allegedly moved on his behalf, be got compared by the handwriting expert. The learned Additional Collector after hearing both the parties had allowed the application of the applicant Rulha and consequently recalled the permission dated 27-1-1987. Therefore, there is no case of transfer made in contravention of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the alleged transferor. 18. The learned Additional Collector after hearing both the parties had allowed the application of the applicant Rulha and consequently recalled the permission dated 27-1-1987. Therefore, there is no case of transfer made in contravention of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the alleged transferor. 18. In the counter affidavit, the stand has been taken by the State that after cancellation of permission of Section 157-A of the said Act, sale of land became void and thus vested in the State since the transfer is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 19. I have pondered over the matter. 20. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that the approach of the learned Collector in passing the impugned order is unjustified and unsustainable in the eye of law. 21. Firstly, because the alleged transferor Rulha had disputed that he had not applied for any such permission to sell his land under Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and had himself moved an application praying that the thumb impression had been made by some body else fraudulently. On the application of the person concerned, namely Rulha, the Additional Collector had held that the application for sale was not made by the transferor Rulha, therefore, the permission already granted on 27-1-1987 was recalled. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transferor has committed any default or that he was guilty of contravening the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act. 22. Secondly, even if it may be presumed that any sale had been effected and sale deed dated 18-2-1987 had been executed, even then, it cannot be said that that there was no permission on the date of execution of sale deed for the simple reason that the sale deed was got executed on the strength of alleged permission obtained on behalf of the transferor of the land, namely, Rulha even though according to late Sri Rulha, he had never executed any sale deed. 23. Thirdly, after the execution of the sale deed, the person concerned, Rulha, filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed before the Civil Court, which was ultimately decreed by the judgment and decree dated 15-7-2000. 23. Thirdly, after the execution of the sale deed, the person concerned, Rulha, filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed before the Civil Court, which was ultimately decreed by the judgment and decree dated 15-7-2000. It has already been held that the transferor Rulha had not executed any sale deed on 18-2-1987 and that he had not received any sale consideration of Rs. 14,500/- from the respondent. The findings recorded by the civil Court in the judgment and decree dated 15-7-2000 passed Original Suit No. 228 of 1993 ought not to have been ignored outright by the learned Collector. It also appears that the learned Collector Haridwar, while passing the impugned order dated 10-1-200 1 did not consider the order dated 24-1-2000, which was filed on behalf of the petitioners in correct perspective. Moreover, unless and until the order dated 24-1-2000, which was passed in favour of the applicant Rulha by the Additional Collector, was recalled or set aside, no adverse inference could have been drawn against Rulha, in the light of the order dated 24-1-2000 as well as judgment and decree dated 15-7-2000, referred to above. The order of the learned Commissioner also erred in dismissing the revision on the ground on which the learned Collector had passed the impugned order thereby holding that the land in question stood vested in the State Government for contravention of provisions under Section 166 of the said Act. In any view of the matter, neither Rulha nor the petitioners who succeeded to the land in dispute from him can be held responsible either of violating the restrictions as contained in Section 157-A or for obtaining the alleged permission for sale on 27-1-1987 against the provisions of Section 157-A, which was subsequently recalled by the Additional Collector or for contravention of the provisions of Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 24. For what has been stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 10-1-2001 passed by the learned Collector Haridwar as well as the order dated 29-7-2003 passed by the learned Commissioner in revision are not tenable in the eye of law and they are liable to be set aside outright. The writ petition. therefore, deserves to be allowed. 25. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No order as to costs. The writ petition. therefore, deserves to be allowed. 25. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No order as to costs. The Collector is directed to enter the name of the petitioners in revenue record on the land in dispute.