JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Rejoinder-affidavit filed which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. Bulaki, Malkhan, Dharmu and Udal sold agricultural land total area 2.267 hectare in favour of cooperative society (Pragatisheel Samuhik Cooperative agricultural society, New Delhi). All these four persons have died and are survived by their sons. The society was already having lot of land. Accordingly proceedings for declaration of the sale-deed in question dated 8.3.1985 as void under Section 154/166/167 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were initiated. Additional Collector Finance and revenue Gautam Budh Nagar through order dated 7.4.1993 declared that the sale-deed was hit by Section 154 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act hence the entire transferred land vested in State. Copy of the said order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In para 2 of the order it is mentioned that notice was issued only to the cooperative society. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is copy of Khatauni 1407 to 1412 fasli mutating the order dated 7.4.1993 on the order of Tehsildar Dadari dated 11.10.1999. In the Khatauni names of Khatedars tenure holders are given who are sons of the four transferors of the sale-deed dated 8.3.1985 and Jai Singh the petitioner. Accordingly, it is quite clear the name of the Cooperative Society had not been mutated in the revenue record. The order dated 7.4.1993 was challenged by the cooperative society through writ petition No. 37574 of 1994 which was dismissed on 30.9.1997. Against the said order S.L.P. was filed which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the order dated 7.4.1993 was mutated on 11.10.1999. In Annexure 1 only three plots are mentioned area of which is 1.502 hectare. However, in the order dated 7.4.1993 it is mentioned that there were two khatas having six plots. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that total area was 2.267 hectare. However, in respect of the other plots Khatauni has not been annexed alongwith this writ petition. 4. Petitioner filed a suit against the cooperative society being O.S. No. 171 of 2002 Jai Singh v. Devendra Kumar Mittal and Secretary of the Society for cancellation of the sale-deed to the extent of 1/5 share of the petitioner. The suit was decreed on 20.1.2003. State Gaon sabha or any officer of the State was not party in the said suit. The suit was decreed on 20.1.2003. State Gaon sabha or any officer of the State was not party in the said suit. Thereafter petitioner filed a restoration application on 13.3.2003 seeking recall of the order dated 7.4.1993 to the extent of petitioner’s 1/5 share. The petitioners case was that he had not been heard and the sale-deed which was illegally executed by other four co-sharers transferring 1/5 share of the petitioner could not bind the petitioner or have any adverse affect upon the petitioners share. The restoration application was filed on 13.3.2003 and has been dismissed by Collector Gautam Budh Nagar through order dated 26.12.2003. In the order dated 26.12.2003 absolutely no reason has been given for rejecting the application. In the earlier part arguments have been noted particularly of the learned standing counsel and in para 3 it has been mentioned that the Collector was accepting the arguments of learned standing counsel. The collector has not given his own opinion/judgment regarding any point involved in the case. Against the order of Collector petitioner filed revision No. 26/2 of 2003-04 Jai Singh v. State, which was dismissed on 20.2.2006 by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut, Division Meerut. Both these orders have been challenged through this writ petition. 5. As far as the question of effect of decree dated 21.1.2003 passed in O.S. No. 171 of 2002 is concerned, it is not at all binding upon the State or its authorities for the reason that they were not parties thereto. Even otherwise as by then not only order of declaring the sale-deed as void under Section 166/167 had been passed but actual mutation had also taken place in favour of the State hence the sale-deed which was sought to be cancelled was not in existence and the defendants of the suit (cooperative society) was no more bhoomidhar of the land. 6. However, the fact remains that petitioner is asserting that in the sale-deed dated 8.3.1985 he was not signatory, he had not transferred his 1/5 share and the other four co sharers who were bhoomidhar only to the extent of 4/5 share in the land illegally and without any authority transferred petitioner’s 1/5 share also which was not binding upon the petitioner. This aspect requires consideration by the collector. This aspect requires consideration by the collector. When in the Khatauni the name of petitioner was there and he had not executed the sale-deed/joined with the sellers of the sale-deed notice should have been issued to him. 7. As far as delay in filing application before the collector is concerned, it could be condoned on payment of good cost. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed impugned orders are set aside. Petitioners recall application is restored and delay in filing the application is condoned on payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost. Half of the cost i.e. 5000/- shall be paid in equal share to following learned counsel present in Court; 1.Sri S.P. Mishra, standing counsel 2.Sri MH Khan, standing counsel 3.Sobhanath, standing counsel 4.A.S.Rana, standing counsel 8. Remaining half cost i.e. Rs. 5000/- shall be paid to the learned counsel for the State before the Collector. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector alongwith certified copy of this judgment on 25.2.2013. On the said date remaining cost of Rs. 5000/- shall either be paid to the learned standing counsel for the State or be deposited before the Collector for payment to the learned State counsel. Thereafter the Collector shall decide the matter on merit only in respect of 1/5 share of the petitioner in the land sold through sale-deed dated 8.3.1984. 9. However, as far as plot No. 140, 142 and 143 are concerned copy of Khatauni in respect thereof has not been annexed alongwith writ petition. It must be ascertained as to whether the name of petitioner Jai Singh was entered in the Khatauni until 7.4.1993/11.10.1999 when aforesaid order of declaration of the sale-deed as void was passed and actual entry of the state was made in the revenue records. The case of the petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 140, 142 and 143 should be considered only if his name was there in the Khatauni till 1994/1999. —————