Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 287 (ALL)

Kshetra Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue, Allahabad

2024-01-25

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. V.K. Nagaich, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 2. The present petition has been filed for following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.04.2001 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 90 of 1999-2000 Firozabad and order passed by the S.D.M. Jasrana in Suit no. 1/5.3.1997, Mulayam Singh Versus Ramurti and others. (b) issue a writ order or dirction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. (c) Issue any such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. In the present case the land in dispute is plot number 2428 (area 0.22 decimal) at Mauja Padham Tehsil Jasrana, District-Firozabad, which was granted on lease to one Ishwar Das in the year 1981. On his death the said land was devolved upon his widow and legal heir Smt. Ram Murti whose name was entered in the land revenue. 4. In the year 1994 said Smt. Ram Murti, executed a sale deed favour of the present petitioner. It was alleged that initially the land was agriculture in nature, however, over the years of use, it was transformed into an Abadi land, used for residential purposes. At a belated stage one Mulayam Singh i.e. respondent no. 3 (allegedly a stranger) filed a complaint against the aforesaid sale deed and prayed for cancellation of it. 5. The said application was preferred before the SDM, Jasrana, under section 167 U.P.Z.A & L.R Act. 1950 and proceedings commenced. 6. The SDM concerned, by an order dated 23.02.2000, decided the proceedings and held sale deed illegal and it was directed that land in question be vested in the State Government and names of Smt. Ram Murti and Shri Ishwar Das be deleted from revenue records. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, however, said revision was dismissed by an order dated 26.4 2001. 8. Both the above orders are impugned in the present case. This Court has passed the following order on 21.05.2001: “Notices on behalf of respondents nos. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, however, said revision was dismissed by an order dated 26.4 2001. 8. Both the above orders are impugned in the present case. This Court has passed the following order on 21.05.2001: “Notices on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by learned chief standing counsel. Issue notice to respondent no. 3. List for admission after service of notice on the respondents. He has been argued that proceeding under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act having been started by stranger, the same was not maintainable in support of this learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Ram Vilas Upadhyaya vs. Chandra Shekhar 1992 R.D. 277. He has further been contended that after lapse of ten years the lease has acquired a right by which the land could have been transferred.” In view of this, until further orders of this court, the petitioner shall not be dispossess from the land in dispute in pursuance of the impugned judgment and orders passed by the court below.” 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ram Vilas Upadhyaya (Supra) and referred its following paragraph: “I would discuss about the legality of sale deed in favour of the appellants, but so far as the maintainability of suit by the plaintiffs is concerned, even assuming that the sale-deed was executed by a sirdar, in that event that would be void under Sec. 166 of the Act. The consequences of void transfers have been provided under Sec. 167 (1) of the Act. The right to sue has been given only to the Gaón Sabha or the Collector where the transfer is made by a sirdar, whereas right to sue has been given to the land holder in the case of transfer by an asami. Any private Individual, including plaintiffs who were totally strangers, so far as the right of succession was concerned as provided under Sec. 171 the plaintiffs were not the heirs of the vendor Sheobadan within the meaning of Sec. 171 (r) of the Act, hence they have certainly no right to sue and in other words, no right to file suit for cancellation of sale-deed in favour of defendant appellants.” 10. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment, dated 28.01.2022, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 414 of 2021 Mirza Asad Beg Vs. State of U.P. and others. 11. Learned counsel submitted that so far as person aggrieved is concerned, a person aggrieved means a person who has wrongly been deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 12. Learned counsel also made reference of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding unless he satisfies the authority/Court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person. Only a person who has suffered or is suffering from illegal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a Court of law. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent no. 3 i.e. the complainant submitted that since the sale deed was in contravention of law and the consequence of it was that it be included in the land of Gaon Sabha, therefore, it was a public cause and he has only pointed out illegality by referring an application. 14. Learned counsel referred relevant part of the order dated 23.02.2000, which is mentioned below, passed by the UP Jiladhikari, District-Jasrana that the pattas granted on a ceiling land could not create any rights for sale. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 15. Learned counsel also referred the relevant part of the order passed by Board of Revenue in revision that since Smt. Ram Murti was only a lease holder of ceiling land, therefore, any transfer made by her was unlawful and void. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: “A perusal of the record makes it evident that the land in question had undergone ceiling operations and vendor Smt. Ram Murti was only a lease-holder of ceiling land, and any transfer made by her was unlawful and void in the eye of law. The view taken by the learned trial court is perfectly justified. The view taken by the learned trial court is perfectly justified. There is no illegality or any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction committed by the court below in passing the impugned order so as to justify the revisional interference by this court.” 16. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was mainly on an objection on locus of the complaint that he was not an aggrieved party and not much argument was placed on merit of the case, i.e. whether the vendor has a legal right to execute a sale on a land granted on lease. 18. Per Contra, the stand of the respondent is mainly on merit of the case that the complainant has only informed about the illegality in the sale deed in order to protect the land of the Gaon Sabha and that petitioner has no legal argument to contradict the said legal preposition. 19. In Ram Vilas Upadhyaya (Supra), it has been held that strangers have no right to challenge a sale deed and the right to sue was given only to the Gaon Sabha or the Collector, however, it has not dealt with how only State or Gaon Sabha has right to file application to declare sale instrument void under Section 167 or 168 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 20. So far as objection of the complainant is concerned, undisputedly they are legally sustainable that since Smt. Ram Murti, was only a lease holder of a ceiling land and therefore she was not entitled to transfer it. However, Gaon Sabha has not objected to it despite the consequence of it i.e. to set aside the sale deed would only that the land would be included in the Gaon Sabha i.e. a larger interest. 21. In Ram Vilas Upadhyaya (Supra) the issue of stranger is being considered that he has no locus to challenge the sale deed without dealing much about provision about its consequence i.e. land would go to Gaon Sabha i.e. a larger interest. 22. The words used in Section 166 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are very important that every sale in consideration of this act shall be ‘void’ therefore it is not a case of ‘cancellation of a sale deed’. 22. The words used in Section 166 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are very important that every sale in consideration of this act shall be ‘void’ therefore it is not a case of ‘cancellation of a sale deed’. Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is about of its consequences, therefore, it is not a case of ‘right of sue’ rather if the sale is void, then consequences shall follow. In Ram Vilas Upadhyaya (Supra) a single Bench of this Court has proceeded further to consider whether sale in question therein was void or not. Proceedings are initiated for consequence only as there is no proceeding under Section 166 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, which is only a declaration and it was only for implementation of consequences, i.e. under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, therefore, objection on locus is legally unsustainable and since there is no legally sustainable argument that vendor has right to sale, since, no bhumidhari rights are accrued on land given on patta being a ceiling land. 23. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order is vacated. Legal consequence shall follow. 24. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.