Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 124 (ALL)

Sahab Lal v. State of U. P.

2018-01-11

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This petition treated to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for a direction to the opposite party no. 3 to decide the petitioner's application filed under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act registered as case no. T-2014103304822, which is stated to be pending since the year 2014. 3. The application filed under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act has come to be filed in the background of the fact that one Smt. Nanhki widow of late Shri Ram Charan @ Ram Chandra executed a sale deed of a portion of plot no. 182 on 10. 9. 2002 in favour of one Satyendra Kumar Singh. A registered sale-deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner on 20. 10. 2012 for the remaining area of plot no. 182. The area of plot no. 182 transferred in favour of opposite party no. 4 corresponds to 0. 0334 hectares whereas the area of plot no. 182 transferred in favour of the petitioner corresponds to 0. 1770 hectares. Thus, the petitioner and opposite party no. 4 became the co-owners of plot no. 182. 4. There is yet another sale-deed executed by opposite party no. 5 in favour of opposite party no. 6 on 28. 1. 2014 of the entire plot no. 182. 5. In this manner, three claimants are claiming their rights with respect to plot no. 182 in whose favour the respective sale-deeds have been executed. 6. The sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner merely mentions the area but the land so transferred is not identified by any metes and bounds and the same has not been demarcated. 7. It appears that after the execution of sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 6, a dispute seems to have arisen between the parties and thus an application under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act came to be filed before the opposite party no. 3. 8. The case set up by the petitioner is that the sale deed executed in favour of the opposite party no. 4 by late Shri Ram Charan @ Ram Chandra being a scheduled caste is void ab initio for the reason that he had not sought prior permission from the Collector in terms of Section 157-A of the Act. 9. 8. The case set up by the petitioner is that the sale deed executed in favour of the opposite party no. 4 by late Shri Ram Charan @ Ram Chandra being a scheduled caste is void ab initio for the reason that he had not sought prior permission from the Collector in terms of Section 157-A of the Act. 9. Once the sale deed was executed without seeking permission from the Collector, according to the petitioner, such a transaction would be void and the land consequently shall vest in the State under Section 166/167 of the Act and the possession thereof has to be taken over by the State. 10. In other words, the alternative contention of the petitioner is that the State Government and the petitioner are the co-owners of disputed property because of inherent defect in the sale-deed so far as the opposite party no. 4 is concerned, as such, unless the land is demarcated, any developmental activity on the said land would be impermissible. 11. It is also contended that the sale deed executed in favour of opposite party no. 6 in its entirety is also bad in the eye of law for the reason that the entire land would partly vest in the petitioner and partly in the State. The opposite party no. 5 thus was left with no legal right to have transferred any part of the plot no. 182 to any third party. 12. Essentially, the petitioner seeks to protect his title in the property without the land being demarcated and partitioned which relief may not lie in the present proceedings. 13. In so far as the application filed by the petitioner under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act is concerned, the same is bound to be decided after putting the transferor as well as the transferee of plot no. 182 to a notice. 14. The application has been registered by the competent court for necessary action. It is incumbent upon the court concerned to proceed with the application and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 15. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy open to him for the protection of his title, the pending application before the Sub-divisional Officer as contained annexure 7 to this petition may be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months after hearing all the affected parties. 16. 15. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy open to him for the protection of his title, the pending application before the Sub-divisional Officer as contained annexure 7 to this petition may be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months after hearing all the affected parties. 16. The petition is accordingly disposed of.