Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Kumar & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 37904 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19019 (10 November 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

RESERVED

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 54195 OF 2006.

Smt. Murty Devi                                                         ...Petitioner.

Versus

Collector, Bulandshahr and others                    ....Respondents.

..........................

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

The petitioner, Smt. Murty Devi purchased an area 1-0-0 by the sale deed no. 2024 dated 28th June, 1990. The vendor of Smt. Murty Devi has transferred an area 2-5-11 in favour of Neeraj Kumar and Rambabu, sons of Subhash Chandra by the separate sale deed of same date, i. e. 28th June, 1990 out of Plot No. 50 khata No. 11 in the same village. The vendor executed another sale deed no. 1645 dated 24.5.1990 whereby an area 0-5-0 was transferred in favour of Ghananand Sharma. During the pendency of mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation of the name on the application filed by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the collector for initiating proceedings under Section 168 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act. As according to the notice served on the petitioner by the transfer of the sale deed in the part of the plot No. 50 amounts to fragmentation of the land of plot no. 50 notice was issued to the petitioner by the Collector and petitioner submitted his reply/objection to the aforesaid notice that the provisions of Section 168 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similar notice was issued to Ghananand Sharma in whose favour an area 0-5-0 was transferred. He also filed objection and adduced evidence. The petitioner, Smt. Murty Devi has set up the case that she along with Ghananand Sharma has purchased the entire area of plot No. 50 by the sale deed which has been jointly executed in favour of petitioner, Murti Devi and Ghananand Sharma, therefore, provisions of Section 168 are not attracted. The Collector has found on the basis of material and evidence on record that the statement of the petitioner that she along with Ghananand Sharma has jointly purchased the land of plot No. 50, is not correct. It is clear from the evidence on record that both the persons have purchased different land by a different sale deed. There is evidence that there were two different sale deeds transferring the land of plot No. 50 in parts on 24th May, 1990   and  second  dated  28th June, 1990 and thus the

.2.

land of plot No. 50 has been transferred in three parts namely 0-5-0, 1-0-0 and 2-5-11. It is clear from the evidence on record that the land is agricultural land and not Abadi and that the land transferred is not covered by the exceptions of Section 168-A of the Act. In these circumstances, the Collector has found that there is clear cut violation of Section 168-A and declared that the land covered by the sale deed of petitioner, Murty Devi and Ghananand Sharma namely 0-5-0,1-0-0 is hit by Section 168-A of the Act and therefore, stand vested in the State Government by the order dated 5th  March, 2001. Aggrieved by the order dated 5th March, 2001 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and raised same arguments which were advanced before the Collector. The Collector has also recorded finding that Subhash Chandra vendor of the petitioner has transferred an area of 0-5-0 by the sale deed No. 1645 in favour of Ghananand Sharma and by another sale deed No. 2024 dated 28th June, 1990 area 1-0-0 has been transferred in favour of the petitioner. It further found that the view of the collector that the transfer by the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, Ghananand Sharma are hit by Section 168-A of the Act and therefore, sale deeds are liable to be declared hit by Section 168-A of the Act and land stands vested in the State Government. Thus, the findings recorded by the Collector has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31st  May, 2004. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a review petition before the Additional Commissioner and reiterated its stand. The Additional Commissioner has found that by the order under review namely, 31st May, 2004 by the then Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut have dismissed all the three revisions filed by the three persons referred to above. It is only the petitioner who file review petition. The Additional Commissioner has categorically observed that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is not the last sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner as submitted by the petitioner. In this view of the matter no grounds is made out for review of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 31st May, 2004 is made out. Thus, review application was dismissed vide order dated 7th June, 2006 by the Additional Commissioner.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the same arguments as were advanced before the Collector and Additional  Commissioner.   Learned  counsel   for  the  petitioner  has  not

.3.

demonstrated that the  findings  recorded  by the Collector and affirmed by

the Additional Commissioner that the land  transferred in favour of the petitioner by the sale deed dated 28th June, 1990 whereby an area 1-0-0  alone has been transferred in favour of the petitioner, is not the last sale deed which is said to be covered by the exception carved out by Section 168-A of the Act in any way suffers from any error much less error apparent on the face of record which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed.

Dated:

HR


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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