Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Upza vs Upper Ayukt Lucknow Division Lucknow ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76073 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1002730 of 2006 Vinod Kumar Upza ..Petitioner(s) Versus Upper Ayukt Lucknow Division Lucknow and 2 others ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Kumar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-State.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 17.11.2005 passed by opposite party no.1 as well as orders dated 27.12.1999 and 5.2.2000 (Annexures 1,2 and 3 respectively).
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner purchased a land of 1/3 share by registered sale deed executed by Roopan in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a mutation aplication before the Tehsildar, Sitapur who reported the case to opposite party no.2 stating that it is hit by Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and dismissed the mutation application and a case under Section 167 and 168 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was registered before opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 passed order for vesting the land in State vide order dated 27.12.1999. The petitioner filed review application which has also been rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the opposite party no.1 who has passed order on 17.11.2005 whereby the revision has also been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended on 23.8.2004 whereby the transaction of land in fragmentation could be held to be void. The amending Act came into existence with immediate effect prospectively but has also saved those transactions which would have been rendered void by fiction of law created under the erstwhile Section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Section 4 and Section 11 of the Amending Act of 2004 which provide in the first instance deletion of Section 168A from the Statute and secondly saving those transactions which were to be held otherwise void in view of fiction created by Section 168-A of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that those transactions would now be rendered as voidable and can be validated by depositing such fee as may be prescribed for by notification of the State Government. He next submitted that both the orders passed by the Tehsildar admittedly after the amending provision had been brought into existence as per notification issued on 23.8.2004 and so also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner therefore are not sustainable.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment passed in Writ-C No.66973 of 2022 titled 'Arshad and another v. Addl. Commissioner Admn. And others decided on 13.12.2022.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-State submitted that provision as contained Section 11 of the Amending Act, 2004 created a prescribed period of one only for getting such transaction prior to the Amending Act coming into force voidable if condition of deficit is certified with only within a period of one year. He next submitted that another Amending Act came into effect with notification on 29.3.2005 as the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 whereby Section 11 of the old Amending Act has been completely omitted by sub-section 2 of Section 4. However, Section 4(1) reiterated the position of getting the old transactions validated by making deposit within a period of one year.
8. Learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Special Provisions) Act, 2014 and 2015 wherein by Section 2 this benefit to get the transfer validated by necessary deposit, was extended for a further period of two years i.e. upto 2015 and 2016.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant amending provision of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and orders impugned herein this petition and I find only two questions arising in this case for consideration: (a) whether the Collector was justified in passing the order on 3.9.2004 holding the transaction in question being infragment, to be prohibited under Section 168-A on 3.9.2004; and (b) whether the benefit conferred under Section 11 of the Amending Act of 2004 and Section 4(1) of the Amending Act, 2005 would be available to the petitioner?
10. Coming to the first question, I find that the provision of Section 168-A was deleted from the Statute book by Amending Act, 2004 with immediate effect saving the old transactions by virtue of Section 11 of the said Act. It would be necessary to go through the relevant provisions of Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 runs as under:
"168-A. Transfer of fragments.-Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, no person shall transfer whether by sale, gift or exchange any fragment situate in a consolidated area except where the transfer is in favour of tenure-holder who has a plot contiguous to the fragment or where the transfer is not in favour of any such tenure-holder the whole or so much of the plot in which person has bhmidhari rights, which pertains to the fragment is thereby transferred. (2) the transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. (3) When a bhumidhar has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) the provisions of Section 167 shall mutatis mutandis apply."
11. Section 4 and Section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 run as follow:-
"Section 4- Section 168-A of the Principal Act shall be omitted.
Section 11- It is hereby declared that any transfer of a fragment which had become void under Section 168-A as it stood before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been voidable any any person may get such transfer validated by depositing such fee and within such time and in such manner as may be notified by the State Government.
Provided that the above provisions shall cease to be in force after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of this Act."
12. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid deleted provisions and new provisions of the Amending Act it is clear that while transactions of for fragmented land that were earlier void, would no more be void as such and further all such transactions that had become void before the amendment came vide Section 4-A of the Amending Act stood saved, however, such transactions were placed in the category of voidable contracts and could be validated within a period of one year from the date, the amending provisions were brought into force complying with the provisions as contained under Section 11 of the Amending Act.
13. The transaction in question also stood automatically saved, and therefore, the Collector had run out of its jurisdiction and authority to declare such transaction of fragmented land to be void under a deleted provision, namely Section 168A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The source of power to declare a particular transaction void was very much taken away, and therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction as such to exercise any such power. Therefore, the Commissioner has also not looked into this legal aspect involved in the matter, and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur confirming the order passed by the Collector is also not sustainable.
14. Now the second question is regarding benefit to be conferred upon the petitioner. Section 11 of the Amending Act, 2004 which stood repealed in the year 2005 with new provision getting incorporated by virtue of Section 4(1) which only saved those lands from the rigours of the old provision of the Act where the State had not come to be recorded in thr revenue records upon such land.
15. The petitioner has obtained interim order from this Court on 26.5.2006 which is extracted here-in-below:
"......
......
....
Till the next date of listing, status quo as it exists today with regard to possession in respect of property in question as well as record, shall be maintained by the parties."
16. In view of the grant of interim order by this Court, the petitioner could not get benefit under saving clause of the aforesaid Amending Act.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in Writ-C No.66973 of 2012 titled 'Arshad and another v. Addl. Commissioner Admn. And others' decided on 13.12.2022 wherein coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the similar issue, operative portion of which is extracted hereinbelow:
17. In my considered view, the litigation before the Collector was the cause of petitioner not getting the benefit of Section 11 of the Amending Act of 2004. The benefit got eclipsed for the litigation. But since the transaction had no more remained void for the saving clause being there, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and to that extent, therefore, the benefit of Section 11 of the Amending Act, 2004 can be extended to the petitioner. So far the fact that this provision got further repealed by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Amending Act, 2004 is concerned, and the benefit was available only for those cases where the entries had not been changed in operating the name of State. In the present case, it is an admitted fact to the parties that the entries still stand in the name of the petitioners in respect of land in question.
18. In the case of Ram Pratap & others Vs. Gulab (2013) 1LR 2All909, this Court had occasioned to interrupt the law. The issue in the case what would be position of Amending Act deletes a provision and does not save the pending proceedings and then provides for protection in respect of those transaction that would have otherwise been void for the provision that has been deleted. The Court proceeded to examine the matter from the point of view of Aims and Objects with which the particular provision has been deleted and another provision has been inserted in its place.
19. The Court referred to the judgment of Smt. Sumita Devi Vs. Sushila Devi & others (Writ-C No. 14489 of 2008), wherein it was held as under:-
"Moreover provisions of Section 168-A were quite harsh. The Section has also been deleted. U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004 which deleted Section 168-A made the previous transactions hit by the said section voidable (in stead of void) and curable (capable of being validated) on payment of some nominal fees within a particular period which has now expired (Section 11). Accordingly, for these two reasons the section shall be interpreted (for the sake of past transactions) liberally, in favour of vendor and vendee."
20. The Court referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & another Vs. Union of India & others (2000) 2 SCC 536 has held thus:-
"The position is well known that at common law, the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section 6or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case where a particular provision in a statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is ] introduced without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings then it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the pending proceeding shall not continue but a fresh proceeding for the same purpose may be initiated under the new provision.
In the present case, as noted earlier, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act has no application. There is no saving provision in favour of pending proceeding. Therefore action for realisation of the amount refunded can only be taken under the new provision in accordance with the terms thereof."
21. The Court referred to the judgment in the case of Smt. Janki & another Vs. Murari Lal & others (Second Appeal No. 2585 of 1974) wherein it has been held thus:-
"In terms of the above said amendments in the present case, the sale deed dated 15.1.1969 executed by Smt. Ganga Devi in favour of Amar Singh and Murari Lal being void under Section 168-A as it stood before the commencement of the Act 2004, was deemed to have been voidable in terms of Section 11 of the special provisions and further amended by Act No.27 of 2004 by which Section 11 has also been omitted as it stood and has been replaced by Section 4 of U. P. Act No.13 of 2004, in terms of which the alleged sale deed dated 15.1.1969 alleged to have become void stands voidable in the case of transfer of such fragment, provided, it has not been entered in the revenue records in favour of the State Government, on the date of the commencement of the U.P. Act No.27 of 2004 or U.P. Act No.13 of 2005 as the case may be and such transferees may get such transfer validated by depositing such fee and within such time and in such manner as may be notified by the State Government. In view of the above said findings, the first question is decided accordingly."
22. Considering the aforesaid judgments, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the respondent was directed to execute the sale deed. In my considered view the proposition of law as has been discussed above and laid down are fully attracted to the present case, and therefore, the order passed by the Collector and the order passed by the Commissioner are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside.
23. The order passed by the Collector dated 3.9.2004 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur dated 1.6.2012 impugned herein this petition as Annexures 2 and 4 are hereby quashed.
24. The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application for making necessary deposit to validate the transaction that has already taken place in respect of which his name is recorded in the revenue records within a period of three months and if any application as such is made, the petitioner may be required to deposit the amount if any that he would have been required to pay in the year 2004-05 and no interest shall be charged upon such amount. An appropriate order in the above regard shall be passed within two weeks of the received of the application.
25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. "
18. Perusal of the above-extracted judgment shows that litigation before the Collector was the cause of petitioner not getting the benefit of Section 11 of the Amending Act of 2004. the benefit got eclipsed for the litigation. But since the transaction had no more remained void for the saving clause being there, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and to that extent, therefore, the benefit of Section 11 of the Amending Act, 2004 can be extended to the petitioner. So far the fact that this provision got further repealed by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Amending Act, 2004 is concerned, and the benefit was available only for those cases where the entries had not been changed in operating the name of State.
19. If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section 6 or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case where a particular provision in a statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is introduced without a saving clause in favour of pending proceeding shall not continue but a fresh proceeding for the same purpose may be initiated under the new provision.
20. In the case in hands, the petitioner purchased a land of 1/3 share by registered sale deed executed by Roopan in favour of petitioner. The petitioner filed a mutation application before the Tehsildar, Sitapur who reported the case to opposite party no.2 stating that it is hit by Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and dismissed the mutation application and vide order dated 27.12.1999 the opposite party no.2 passed the order for vesting the land in State.
21. I have examined the material available on record in the light of the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.
22. On examination, it is found that while passing the impugned orders, the respondents have not taken into account the deleted provisions and new provisions of the Amending Act to the effect that while transaction for fragmented land that were earlier void, would no more be void as such and further all such transactions that had become void before the amendment came vide Section 4-A of the Amending Act stood saved, however, such transactions were placed in the category of voidable contracts and could be validated within a period of one year from the date, the amending provisions were brought into force complying with the provisions as contained under Section 11 of the Amending Act. In this view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Arshad and another (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
23. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 17.11.2005 passed by opposite party no.1 as well as orders dated 27.12.1999 and 5.2.2000 (Annexures 1,2 and 3 respectively) are hereby quashed.
24. However, the opposite party no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order taking into consideration the Amending Act as well as saving Act under the relevant Amending Act with the liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for making necessary deposit to validate the transaction that has already taken place in respect of which his name is recorded in the revenue records within a period of three months and if any application as such is made, the petitioner may be required to deposit the amount, if any that would have been required to pay in the year 2004-05 and no interest shall be charged upon such amount. An appropriate order in the above regard shall be passed within two weeks of the received of the application.
25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
(Irshad Ali,J.) November 18, 2025 GK Sinha