Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/892/2016 on 11 March, 2020
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
WPMS No. 892 of 2016 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Alleging that the deed which was executed by Sumer Chandra by virtue of the sale deed dated 02.03.1996, selling the property constituting to be of 5 biswa and 5 biswancis of land, it is said to be in violation of the provisions contained under Section 157ka(ka) to be read with Section 157ka of UPZA & LR Act. As the sale is alleged to have been made without obtaining a prior permission in writing from the competent authority, because it was the land vested with the OBC category of tenure holder.
The proceeding was drawn before the Court of Collector, Haridwar, who by an order dated 07.03.2003, had passed the following directions:-
**oknh dk okn Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 35@4 jdck 0-345 gS0 esa ls 0-059 gS0 jkT; ljdkj esa fcuk Hkkj ds fufgr dh tkrh gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ls lesjpUnz iq= vk"kkjke dk uke fujLr dj lEifRr jkT; ljdkj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr djrs g;s dCtk izkIr fd;k tk;saA i=koyh ckn vko";d dk;Zokgh vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr dh tk;saA** As a consequence of the order of the Collector, since sale deed has been held to be void as per the provisions contained under Section 166, the action taken thereof was falling to be within the purview of Section 167 of the UPZA & LR Act, thus vesting the property with the State Government. As per Entry 15 of Schedule 2, the said order passed under Section 167, would be an appellable order before the Court of Commissioner and thereafter the Second Appeal is provided under the statute. But under the advice extended to the petitioner by his counsel, he had preferred a revision invoking the provisions contained under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act, which was not maintainable.
This Court is of the view that as far as the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 333 of UPZA & LR Act, it was under a wrong legal advice extended to him because the same would not be tenable once the statute itself contemplates preferring of an appeal against order passed under Section 167 of the UPZA & LR Act, as under Entry 15 Schedule II, as against the order passed under Section 166 and 167 of the UPZA & LR Act.
In that view of the matter, while holding that the revision itself preferred by the petitioner being Revision No. 150 of 2012-13, Chandra Pal Vs. State was not maintainable, I hereby while dismissing the writ petition holding that the revision was not maintainable, leave it open for the petitioner to prefer an appeal as against the order dated 07.03.2003 rendered in Case No. 56 of 2001, State Vs. Chandrapal under Section 166 and 167.
In case, if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the competent First Appellate Court, as created under the UPZA & LR Act, the aspect of delay would be liberally construed in the light of the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the fact that the petitioner had been bonafidely pursuing his revision and thereafter the present writ petition before this Court against impugned orders.
Consequently, subject to the aforesaid liberty open to the petitioner to file an appropriate statutory appeal available to him as against the order of Collector dated 07.03.2003, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 11.03.2020 Mahinder/