Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 329 (ALL)

Deepak Madhok v. Board of Revenue

2025-02-13

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2025
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that property in question was recorded in the name of Smt. Saranga Devi, Ranjeet, Sanjeet, Jagjeet and Smt. Jamuna Devi. Smt. Saranga Devi and others transferred their 1/2 share of the property in question in favour of Dr. Amrit Lal Ishrat (father of petitioner no.1) and Smt. Bharti Madhok (petitioner no.2) through registered sale deed dated 23.6.1988. Smt. Jamuna Devi executed an agreement to sale in respect to her 1/2 share in favour of Smt. D-Ishrat. The proceedings under Section 122 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") was initiated against Smt. Bharti Madhok and others which was decided vide order dated 11.3.1991 for ejectment and damages. Petitioner no.2/ Bharti Madhok filed revision against the order dated 11.3.1991 which was admitted but no interim order was granted, accordingly, writ petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 25.3.1991 directing to decide the revision within three months and till the disposal of the revision the dispossession of the petitioners were stayed. The aforementioned revision was ultimately dismissed on 15.5.1991, accordingly, writ petition has been filed by petitioner no.2 / Bharti Madhok in which interim order was granted on 13.6.1991 staying the operation of the orders dated 11.3.1991 & 15.5.1991. A notice under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act dated 27.6.1991 was issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Varanasi to the petitioners that in view of the provisions contained under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect to the aforementioned sale deed/ agreement to sale, the property in question should be vested in State Government. Petitioners filed their objection / reply dated 21.7.1991 against the aforementioned notice dated 27.6.1991 stating that dispute with respect to the aforementioned property is pending before this Court arising out of proceeding under Section 122 -B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and interim order is operating, as such, the notice issued under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be entertained. It has also been mentioned in the objection / reply that the provision under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will not apply in respect to agreement to sale. It is also specifically mentioned in the objection / reply that vendor of the sale deed do not belong to Scheduled Castes, as such, the notice issued against the petitioners is liable to be rejected. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.10.1992 directed that property in question be vested in State and possession was ordered to be taken from petitioners accordingly. Petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 28.10.1992, which was registered as Revision No.16 of 1992. The aforementioned revision was heard by the Additional Commissioner and operation of the order dated 28.10.1992 was stayed. Interim order passed by Additional Commissioner was remained in operation during pendency of the revision. Additional Commissioner vide order dated 1.7.1996 dismissed the revision. Petitioners challenged the order dated 1.7.1996 & 28.10.1992 before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No.71 of 1995-96. The Board of Revenue admitted the revision and granted interim protection staying the operation of the order dated 1.7.1996 & 28.10.1992. The Board of Revenue by final order dated 29.11.2007 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the respondent no.1, the order dated 1.7.1996 passed by the respondent no.2, the order dated 28.10.1992 passed by respondent no.3 and the notice under Section 167 of the Act issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1 to 4 to the writ petition. ii. issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 14.12.2007 and stayed the operation of the orders dated 29.11.2007, 1.7.1996 & 28.10.1992. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State in spite of the expiry of more than 17 years, hence there is no option except to decide the instant petition on the basis of the averment made in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vesting the land in State without adjudicating the controversy in proper manner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vesting the land in State without adjudicating the controversy in proper manner. He further submitted that the petitioners have taken specific objection in their objection / reply that vendor do not belong to Scheduled Castes Community but without adjudicating the controversy involved in the matter, the property in question has been vested in State. He further submitted that the procedure adopted by the authorities for vesting the property in question in State is wholly illegal, as such, the impugned order vesting the land in State cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioners as setup in the proceedings. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be applied in respect to the agreement to sale executed by the tenure holder concerned. He further submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the notice issued against the petitioners should be rejected. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that all the three Courts have decided the dispute in proper manner, as such, no interference is required against the impugned orders. He further submitted that there was violation of the provisions contained under Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, consequences as provided under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been followed in the matter so no interference is required against the impugned order vesting the property in question in State. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that 1/2 share of the property was sold by way of registered sale deed and regarding 1/2 share of the property in question, agreement to sale was executed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer has ordered for vesting the property in question in State and order has been maintained in revision. 9. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer has ordered for vesting the property in question in State and order has been maintained in revision. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the objection taken by the petitioners against the show cause notice, under Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant, which is as under: 10. Perusal of the reply / objection filed by the petitioners fully demonstrate that the petitioner has taken specific objection that vendor do not belong to Scheduled Castes Community but no proper adjudication has taken place regarding the objection of the petitioners and the property has been ordered to be vested in State under the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. 11. It is also material that petitioners have also taken specific stand to this effect in Paragraph No.29 of the instant petition that petitioner's vendor do not belong to Scheduled Castes Community but no counter affidavit has been filed by State for last 17 years denying the averment made in the writ petition that petitioner's vendor do not belong to Scheduled Castes Community. 12. It is also material that part of the property has ordered to be vested in State on the basis of agreement to sale executed by the recorded tenure holder which is also not proper on the part of the Sub-Divisional Officer. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.11.2007 passed by respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, order dated 1.7.1996 passed by respondent no.3/ Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, Varanasi and order dated 28.10.1992 passed by respondent no.4/ Sub-Divisional Officer are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. The show cause notice dated 27.6.1991 issued by respondent no.4/ Sub-Divisional Officer against the petitioners is hereby rejected. 14. The writ petition stands allowed. 15. No order as to costs.