Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2406 (ALL)

Suresh v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration)

2016-07-12

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Shri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learning Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 24.09.2012 passed by Collector, Muzaffar Nagar and the order dated 30.10.2013, passed by Additional Commissioner. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that one Manga, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste obtained a lease of plot no. 267/624 area 0.205 hectare from the Gaon Sabha. Manga executed a sale-deed in favour of one Usmaan son of Unis on 26.07.1995. 3. Since this sale-deed was hit by Section 157-AA of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act a report, in this regard, was made by the Tehsildar on 11.02.2002 whereupon case no. 135 was registered. 4. Subsequently Manga executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.12.2002. In this regard, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jansath made a report dated 07.03.2003 and forwarded the same to the Collector. Along with this report, the record of case no. 135 referred to above was also forwarded to the Collector. Before the Collector, two cases were registered, namely, case no. 11 of 2002-03: Usmaan v. Manga and case no. 12 of 2002-03: Suresh v. Manga under Section 167 of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Both these cases were consolidated and case no. 11 of 2002-03: Usmaan v. Manga was made the leading case. 5. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that there are two sale-deeds of plot no. 267/624, area 0.205 hectares situated in village Khedi Firozabad, Pargana Jauli, Tehsil Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar. 6. The first sale-deed was executed by Manga in favour of one Usmaan on 26.07.1995 and the second sale-deed of the same property was executed on 27.07.2002 in favour of Suresh, the petitioner. 7. In these proceedings, Manga denied having executed any sale-deed in favour of Usmaan. He stated that Usmaan never sought mutation on the basis of the alleged sale-deed and, therefore, the document is a void document. It is, therefore, contended that the sale-deed in favour of the Suresh, which had been executed after obtaining permission from the Assistant Collector, was a valid sale-deed and on its basis, the petitioner was liable to be mutated. 8. The Collector, Muzaffar Nagar by his order dated 24.09.2012 directed the land in question to vest in the State. It is, therefore, contended that the sale-deed in favour of the Suresh, which had been executed after obtaining permission from the Assistant Collector, was a valid sale-deed and on its basis, the petitioner was liable to be mutated. 8. The Collector, Muzaffar Nagar by his order dated 24.09.2012 directed the land in question to vest in the State. The copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate with the direction that the same be incorporated in the revenue records and possession of the land be taken. This order was passed in case no. 11 of 2002-03 (subsequently numbered as case no. 9 of 2007-08) and its copy was directed to be placed on the record of case no. 12 of 2002-03 also. 9. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision no. 16 of 2013-14. The Additional Collector (Administration), vide order dated 30.10.2013, dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition which is reported to suffer from laches of one year and sixty nine days. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale-deed in his favour had been executed after obtaining permission from the Assistant Collector and, therefore, it was not hit by Section 157-AA/166/167 of the Act. The orders impugned, therefore, are unsustainable. 11. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that the first sale-deed executed by the Manga on 26.07.1995, had been executed without obtaining permission and, therefore, it was a void transfer in view of Section 157-AA/166 of the Act. The land, subject matter of such a void transfer, vested in the State from the date of the transfer itself. Under the circumstances, Manga could not have executed a sale-deed of the same land in the year 2002 and, therefore, impugned orders have been rightly passed and the same are liable to be affirmed. 12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased land in question, by means of a registered sale-deed executed in his favour after obtaining permission of the Assistant Collector. On the date, the sale was executed, the vendor was recorded in the revenue records. He has also submitted that the alleged sale-deed in favour of Usmaan is a bogus document. The original sale-deed was never filed in the proceedings and the orders have been passed, relying upon its photostat copy. On the date, the sale was executed, the vendor was recorded in the revenue records. He has also submitted that the alleged sale-deed in favour of Usmaan is a bogus document. The original sale-deed was never filed in the proceedings and the orders have been passed, relying upon its photostat copy. Even otherwise Manga had categorically denied having executed the sale-deed and this fact coupled with the fact that the alleged vendee never sought mutation, fortifies, his claim. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. The revisional court has recorded that the first sale-deed was executed by Manga on 26.07.1995. On this date, Manga was recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. He became a bhumidhar with transferable rights, in view of Section 131-B of the Act, vide order dated 30.11.1996, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and amaldaramad in this regard was made on 07.02.1997. On the date of this sale-deed, Manga being a bhumidhar with non transferable rights, could not have executed the sale-deed and this document was, therefore, void. 15. Even otherwise, the sale deed was executed without obtaining permission as required by Section 157-AA of the Act. The transfer was, therefore, void and the land, the subject matter of this transfer vested in the State from the date of the transfer itself. For the same reason, Manga had no right thereafter to execute a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. 16. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale-deed in favour of Usmaan was a fraudulent document and the same could not have been taken into consideration as the original was not available on record, cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record that to show Manga filed a suit for cancellation of this document. Besides the original would necessarily be in the custody of Usmaan and, therefore, the same was not filed. I do not find any illegality or improperity in the reasoning given in the impugned orders. Once, the transfer in favour of Usmaan, was a void transaction, the land, subject matter of this void transfer would to be deemed to have vested in the State from the date of the transfer itself. This is categorically provided by Section 167 of the Act. Once, the transfer in favour of Usmaan, was a void transaction, the land, subject matter of this void transfer would to be deemed to have vested in the State from the date of the transfer itself. This is categorically provided by Section 167 of the Act. The orders impugned are in consonance with this categorical provision of law and, therefore, the same cannot be faulted with. 17. Section 167 enumerates the consequences of a void transfer. Sub-section (1-a) thereof, provides " the subject matter of transfer shall, with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances" 18. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the copy of the permission granted by the Deputy Collector, Tehsil on 26.12.2002 under Section 157-AA of the Act. 19. Perusal of this order reveals that it contains a recital that in case a sale-deed has been executed earlier in time, the permission granted, would stand revoked, automatically. This is precisely what has happened in the case at hand. The vendor of the petitioner had already executed a sale-deed in favour of Usmaan in the year 1995 itself. Therefore, the permission which is the basis of the petitioner's claim, stood revoked, automatically. 20. Section 166 of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was introduced by UP Act No. 20 of 1983. The statement of objects and reasons appended there to, among other things also states as follows. "Under the existing provisions the transfers made in contravention of the provisions of the said Act are declared void after following the given procedure. It has been considered necessary to provide that such transfers shall be deemed to be void and no declaration shall be necessary therefor." 21. Under the circumstances and in view of the categorical deeming clause contained in Section 167 of the Act, as also in view of the conditional permission granted for execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner, is found to be devoid of merit. 22. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.