Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Chandra Kala Devi v. Commissioner, Vindhayachal Division Mirzapur & Others - WRIT - C No. 35204 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13433 (2 August 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.

The petitioner has admittedly purchased land on 11.10.1995.  The transaction so effected was in violation of Section 168-A of the UPZA&LR Act.   As a consequent thereto land stood vested in the State Government with reference to the provisions of Section 167 of the UPZA&LR Act.  The state legislature by means of U.P. Act No. 13 of 2005 amended the provisions of Section 154 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 2005 introduced a special provision by Section 4 where under it was provided as follows :

"4. Special Provisions.-(1) It is hereby declared that any transfer of such fragment as had become void under Section 168-A as it stood before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolitionand Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004) and had not been entered in revenue records in favour of State Government shall be deemed to have been voidable and 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 provisions of this sub-section shall cease to be in force after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of this Act."

That in pursuance of the aforesaid statutory provision, the notification was issued by the State Government on 13.6.2005 laying down the procedure and the amount to be deposited by a person whose transaction was held to be void under Section 168-A to get the transaction revalidated in terms of the special provisions in Section 4.  That under a notification the last date for deposit of the cost for revalidating the sale transaction was fixed six months from the date of notification the period whereof would have expired on 12.11.2005.  Till date the petitioner has not deposited the cost so fixed and, therefore, no benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner under Section 4 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 2005.

There is no error in the order so passed so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.