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


Adil Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru' Collector And Others - WRIT - C No. 33672 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12890 (26 July 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 Additional Commissioner under the impugned order dated 23.4.2007 has recorded following two findings adverse to the petitioner :

(a)  Land in question  was granted by way of Patta in favour of one Likkhi.  The Tehsildar has submitted that Likkhi was a member of Scheduled Caste. No evidence could be led by the petitioner to rebut the said fact and, therefore, it has been held that the sale deed executed by Likkhi is in violation of Section 157 A of the UPZA&LR Act therefore, e void ab initio.  Section 167 provides for the consequences which follow because of  such void transfers.

(b)  That that Patta of the land in  favour of Likkhi was granted in the year 1983. In case he is not a member of Scheduled Caste, no right of Bhumidhar with transferable right had accrued in his favour on the date of sale as the land was sold and transferred in the year 1988 that is even prior to expiry of 10 years of his possession.

The aforesaid finding of the Commissioner are being challenged on the ground that in the notice issued to the petitioner it was only mentioned that Likkhi had no right to transfer the property on 23.12.1998.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was no specific allegation that Likkhi was not a Scheduled Caste and further since on the date the petitioner had purchased the land his name was recorded in the revenue records the impugned order holding that the sale was void and land stands has vested in the State under Section 167 of the UPZA&LR Act is not justified.

The contention on behalf of the petitioner is totally misconceived.  The finding recorded by the Commissioner to the effect that  that Likkhi was a member of Scheduled Caste has not been controverted even before this Court on the basis of any material evidence.  Even otherwise if it is accepted for the moment that Likkhi was not a member of Scheduled Caste it is admitted on record  that  Likkhi was granted Patta in the year 1983. He had sold and transferred the land in 1988.  No right of  Bhumidhar with transferable rights can, therefore accrue in his favour under Section 131 of the UPZA&LR Act.  No other provision could be referred to by the counsel for the petitioner whereunder such right could be claimed in favour of Likkhi.  

Such transfers have been declared to be null and void and in terms of Section 167 of the UPZA&LR Act the land would vest in the State Government.  There is no illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Dated: 26.7.2007



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.