Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Meanwhile, in the interregnum the allottees filed an Application under Section 131-B of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 for grant of Bhumidhari with transferable rights before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar which was registered as Case No. 6/05/02/06 village Mohiuddinpur Kanawani (Hukum Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others). The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 18.09.2006 granted the Bhumidhari with transferable rights to the Allottees Hukum Singh and others (11 Allottees) in respect of the plots detailed in Para 37 of the writ petition. Thereafter the 11 Allottees moved application under Section 143 UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and the Sub Divisional Officer, Dadri declared the plots allotted to the allottees as non agricultural. After obtaining the declaration under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 the 11 Allottees transferred their respective shares by executing different sale deeds in favour of different persons. The petitioner purchased an area of 1644.02 sq. mtrs. of Plot No. 525 of Maniram (Allottee) who had transferred the same to one Vishal through sale deed who in turn sold the same to the petitioner under a registered sale deed. Maniram the original allottee transferred another part of Khasra No. 525 area 1644.02 sq. mtrs. in favour of one Vinay Kumar Jain, who in turn transferred the same to the petitioner under a registered sale deed. Likewise, an area of Plot No. 525 was transferred by Smt. Vishambhari wife of Sevaram (Allottee) to one Abhai Narain, who in turn transferred the same in favour of the petitioner.

19. From the pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration the respective stands and on perusal of the records the following questions crop up for consideration by the Court. Adjudication of the questions would settle the lis between the parties:

(1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the wake of availability of an effective alternative remedy of revision under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act ?
(2) Whether the proceedings for cancellation of the Agricultural lease in favour of the allotteees under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act would be maintainable even beyond the period prescribed by Section 198 (6) of the UPZA & LR Act on the allegation that the allotment was irregular or tainted by fraud ?
(3) Whether the conferment of Bhumidhari with transferable rights under Section 131-B of the UPZA & LR Act and declaration thereafter under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act would oust the jurisdiction of the Collector of his powers under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act, rendering the entire proceedings drawn against the petitioner/ allottees not maintainable ?

20. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

21. Now coming to the first question about maintainability of the writ petition in the wake of availability of an effective alternate remedy available to the petitioner is concerned the Court finds that the impugned order dated 18.06.2018 has been passed in purported exercise of Powers under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act. Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 provides as under

34. Now, as regards the third question i.e. whether the conferment of Bhumidhari with transferable rights under Section 131-B of the UPZA & LR Act and declaration thereafter under Section 143 of the UPZA &LR Act would oust the jurisdiction of the Collector of his powers under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act, rendering the entire proceedings drawn against the petitioner as not maintainable it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cumulative effect of the order passed under Section 131-B and 143 of the UPZA & LR Act is that the land shall stand excluded from the applicability of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the UPZA & LR Act including the provisions of Section 198 (4). Consequently, the Collector lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the impugned order which is not liable to be sustained and deserves to be quashed especially in the wake of the fact that the orders passed under Section 131-B and 143 of the UPZA & LR Act had attained finality in the absence of any challenge. The legal submissions could not be refuted by the learned counsels for the respondents.