Allahabad High Court
Mathura Vrindavan Development ... vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & ... on 12 January, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2915 of 2006
Petitioner :- Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority Thru' Its V.C.
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- D.S. Chauhan
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sharad Malviya,V.K.Singh
Court No. 06
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2915 of 2006.
Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority,
Mathura through its Vice Chairman.
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & others.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Heard Shri G.N.Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri D.S.Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of the writ petitioner and Shri S.N.Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sharad Malviya, Advocate on behalf of the private respondents and the Standing Counsel.
Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority has filed this writ petition against the orders dated 28.08.2003 and dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue. By means of the first order, the Hon'ble Board of Revenue has allowed the second appeal filed by Bhanu Prakash, respondent no. 3. By means of the second order the Board of Revenue has rejected the application made by the present petitioner for recall of the order dated 28.08.2003.
Respondents no. 2 and 3 filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act against 7 private respondents as well as Gaon Sabha of the village concerned and the State of U.P. seeking declaration of their rights over the land in question. The suit was decreed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mathura on 21.06.1985. State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner. The Appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide order dated 07.07.1987. Against the order dated 07.07.1987 a second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the Board of Revenue. In between a notification came to be issued by the Collector dated 10.08.1990 whereby in exercise of powers under Section 117(6) of the UPZA&LR Act, the Collector resumed the possession of the land from the Gaon Sabha and transferred the same to the Secretary, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority for beautification of Mathura. This notification was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25976 of 1990 by the plaintiffs to the suit. The writ petition continued to remain pending before this Court till 23.02.2005 when it was allowed and notification under Section 117(6) of the UPZA&LR Act issued by the state authorities was set aside. It was held that on 28.08.2003, the Board of Revenue had already allowed the Second Appeal No. 32 of 1990-91 and had restored back the order of the Sub Divisional Officer declaring the plantiff petitioner as the owners of the land in question. The order of the Board of Revenue was not subjected to challenge by the Gaon Sabha and the same had become final. The Court also noticed the fact that the land has been transferred in favour of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and held as follows:
"In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, the State Government has no authority of law to issue any notification in respect of the land of which the petitioners are the owners inasmuch as the said land does not belong to the Gaon Sabha. In such circumstances, the notification issued by the State Government is legally not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority being a transferee of land after it was resumed by the State Government under notification 117(6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot have any better title over the property in question than right which was possessed by the Gaon Sabha nor it can plead any better title before any Court of flaw than that was pleaded by the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha having lost the dispute pertaining to the title over the property in question and the order having become final, the same would equally bind the transferee namely Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. In such circumstances, the transfer of the land under the notification dated 10th August, 1990 to Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority also cannot be justified."
There is nothing on record to establish that the order so passed by this Court was subjected to any further challenge.
The application of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority continued to remain pending. Therefore, the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority for being impleaded as party before Board of Revenue moved a restoration application which was numbered as Application No. 70 of 2003. This restoration application has been rejected under the order dated 05.05.2005. Hence the present petition.
From the facts on record, this Court finds that the title suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act between the plaintiff and the State and Gaon Sabha has been settled by the Board of Revenue finally in accordance with law under the judgment and order dated 28.08.2003. The Gaon Sabha and the State have not chosen to challenge the said order. The notification under Section 117 (6) of the UPZA&LR Act has been held to be illegal under the judgment dated 23.02.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25976 of 1990 which order has become final. Consequently the petitioner being only a transferee under Section 117(6) of the UPZA&LR Act cannot be permitte4d to raise a grievance against the order of the Board of Revenue whereby Second Appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act between the plaintiffs and the State/Gaon Sabha has been finally decided. The petitioner before this Court cannot have a better claim or title being a subsequent transferee and such transfer had taken place after initiation of the suit proceedings.
In the totality of the circumstances as noticed herein above, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order dated 28.08.2003 and dated 05.05.2005 at the behest of the petitioner who claims right and title on the basis of a notification under Section 117(6) of the UPZA&LR Act which has already been quashed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25976 of 1990.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Dated : 12.01.2010 VR/2915/06