Civil Suit No. 222 of 2014 · High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. I n t his pet it ion, filed under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion, pet it ioner has challenged t he j udgm ent s and orders passed by Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar; Com m issioner, Kum aon Division and Board of Revenue. The im pugned j udgm ent s are on record as Annexure nos. 1, 2 & 3, respect ively.

2. By t he j udgm ent dat ed 18.01.2016, passed by Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar, 0.1290 hect are land, com prised in Khasra no. 134, sit uat e in Village Bahadurpur, Tehsil Jaspur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, was vest ed in St at e Governm ent , by invoking Sect ion 167 of U.P Zam indari Abolit ion and Land Reform s Act , 1950 ( in short “ UPAZ&LR Act ” ) , t ransferring t he said in violat ion of provision cont ained in Sect ion 157-A of t he said Act .

3. Sect ions 157-A, 166 & 167( 1) of UPAZ&LR Act , which are relevant t he present case, are reproduced below: - 1 “ 1 5 7 A . Re st r i ct i o n s o n t r a n sf e r o f l a n d b y m e m b e r s o f Sch e d u l e d Ca st e s [ Su b st i t u t e d b y U.P. A ct N o . 2 0 o f 1 9 8 2 ( w .e .f . 0 3 .0 6 .1 9 8 1 ) .] ( 1) Wit hout prej udice t o t he rest rict ions cont ained in t o 157, no bhum idhar or asam i Sect ions 153 belonging t o a Scheduled Cast e shall have t he right t o t ransfer any land by way of sale, gift , m ort gage or lease t o a person not belonging t o a Scheduled Cast e, except w it h t he previous approval of t he Collect or: Provided t hat no such approval shall be given by t he Collect or in case where t he land held in Ut t ar Pradesh by t he t ransfer on t he dat e of applicat ion under t his sect ion is less t han 1.26 hect ares or where t he area of land so held in Ut t ar Pradesh by t he t ransferor on t he said dat e is aft er such t ransfer, likely t o be reduced t o less t han 1.26 hect ares. ( 2) The Collect or shall, on an applicat ion m ade in t hat behalf in t he prescribed m anner, m ake such inquiry as m ay be prescribed.] 1 6 6 . Every t ransfer m ade in cont ravent ion of t he provisions of t his Act , shall be void. 1 6 7 .( 1 ) The following consequences shall ensue in respect of every t ransfer which is void by virt ue of Sect ion 166, nam ely- ( a) t he subj ect- m at t er of t ransfer shall wit h effect from t he dat e of t ransfer, be deem ed t o have vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent free from all encum brances.”

4. Pursuant t o t he not ice issued t o him by Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar, pet it ioner subm it t ed his reply in which he adm it t ed t hat he had t ransferred t he in quest ion t o a person not belonging t o Scheduled Cast e, however, he offered an explanat ion t hat at t he t im e of t ransfer, he was not aware t hat t he t ransferee does not belong t o Scheduled Cast e. He furt her cont ended t hat t he sale deed dat ed

13.07.2011, m ade by him in favour of Sm t . Nirdesh Kum ari, was cancelled vide j udgm ent dat ed 22.11.2014 by Civil Judge ( J.D.) , Kashipur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 222 of 2014.

5. The t ransferee ( Sm t . Nirdesh Kum ari) also filed reply t o t he not ice issued by Dist rict Magist rat e in 2 which she st at ed t hat she was not aware while purchasing t he t hat pet it ioner belongs t o Scheduled Cast e and t he sale deed, execut ed in her favour by t he pet it ioner, was cancelled by learned Civil Judge ( J.D) , Kashipur vide j udgm ent dat ed 22.11.2014. Thus, t he t ransferee also support ed t he case of pet it ioner.

6. Learned Dist rict Magist rat e disbelieved t he version of pet it ioner and t ransferee, t hat t hey were not aware about t he ‘cast e st at us’ of each ot her, on t he ground t hat bot h of t hem are residing in t he sam e area. The Collect or furt her held t hat t he sale deed execut ed by pet it ioner was cancelled by filing a collusive suit for cancellat ion; since pet it ioner, who belong t o Scheduled Cast e com m unit y, sold t he land wit hout approval of t he Collect or, in violat ion of Sect ion 157-A of UPAZ&LR Act , t herefore, t he land is liable t o be vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent . He, accordingly, decided t he proceedings against t he pet it ioner and invoked t he power under Sect ion 167( 1) ( a) of UPAZ&LR Act .

7. Pet it ioner filed appeal before Com m issioner, which was dism issed vide j udgm ent dat ed 22.02.2017. Learned Com m issioner held t hat t he decree of cancellat ion of sale deed, passed by Civil Court in favour of pet it ioner, do not im prove his case, as by virt ue of Sect ion 167( 1) ( a) of t he UPAZ&LR Act , t he land in quest ion is vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent from t he dat e of t ransfer i.e. 13.07.2011. 3

8. Revisional Court / Board of Revenue dism issed t he revision, filed by t he pet it ioner, by holding t hat since t he t ransfer was m ade in violat ion of t he provision of t he aforesaid Act , t herefore, such t ransfer is void ab init io and t he land, which was t ransferred, cam e t o be vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent from t he dat e of t he t ransfer, i.e. 13.07.2011.

Pet it ioner has challenged t he im pugned j udgm ent s and orders on t he ground t hat in view of cancellat ion of sale deed by a Civil Court , t he provision cont ained in Sect ion 167( 1) ( a) could not have been invoked against t he pet it ioner.

10. Learned St at e Counsel, however, subm it s t hat t he decree of cancellat ion of sale deed was obt ained by pet it ioner in a collusive suit , which was filed by pet it ioner aft er init iat ion of proceedings under UPAZ&LR Act . He refers t o t he plaint of t he said suit , in which pet it ioner has pleaded t hat he had agreed t o sell the land in question for ₹1,75,000/- and t he agreem ent t o sell was t o be execut ed on 13.07.2011; t he transferee paid him ₹1,00,000/- and assured him t hat t he rem aining am ount would be paid, wit hin t welve m ont hs; t he t ransferee did not pay t he rem aining am ount t hen he cam e t o know t hat in place of agreem ent t o sell, a sale deed was execut ed on

13.07.2011.

11. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat before t he Civil Court , pet it ioner t ook t he st and t hat since t he ent ire sale considerat ion is not paid t o him , t herefore, 4 t he sale deed is liable t o be cancelled. He furt her subm it s t hat based on such pleadings, suit cancellat ion of sale deed could not be decreed and in t he circum st ances as m ent ioned in t he suit , pet it ioner could have filed a m oney recovery suit . He subm it s t hat t he said suit was not decided on m erit s, but it was decreed, com prom ise, defendant ( t ransferee) st at ed t hat she has no obj ect ion against cancellat ion of sale deed. Learned St at e Counsel furt her subm it s t hat t he decree of cancellat ion of sale deed, which was obt ained by pet it ioner in 2014, does not help him in view of provision cont ained in Sect ion 167( 1) ( a) of t he Act , which provides t hat subj ect m at t er of t ransfer shall be deem ed t o have vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent w.e.f. t he dat e of t ransfer. He subm it s t hat since t ransfer was m ade by pet it ioner on

13.07.2011, in violat ion of St at ut ory provisions, t herefore, as a consequences of such illegal t ransfer, t he land, which was subj ect m at t er of t ransfer, cam e t o be vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent from t he dat e of such t ransfer.

12. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. I n view of provision cont ained in Sect ion 167( 1) ( a) of t he UPAZ&LR Act , t he land, which was subj ect m at t er of t ransfer, shall be deem ed t o have vest ed in t he St at e Governm ent from t he dat e of t ransfer i.e. 13.07.2011; t herefore, t he subsequent decree of cancellat ion of sale deed, passed by Civil Court , will not im prove t he case of t he pet it ioner. Dist rict Magist rat e right ly disbelieved t he version of t he pet it ioner t hat he was not aware about 5 t he cast e st at us of t he t ransferee, as bot h of t hem are residing in t he sam e area. From perusal of t he decree passed by Civil Court on pet it ioner ’s civil suit , it is revealed t hat t he case was decided, based on com prom ise, as t he t ransferee conceded t hat she has no obj ect ion if t he sale deed is cancelled. The ground t aken for seeking decree of cancellat ion of sale deed also do not appear t o be germ ane, as pet it ioner could have filed a m oney recovery suit for recovering unpaid sale considerat ion. Thus, t his Court does not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent s and orders passed by Dist rict Magist rat e, Com m issioner and Board of Revenue.

13. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner t hen relied upon an order passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in t he case of Chandra Pal vs St at e of U.P. & ot hers, report ed in 2014 SCC Online All 4079 for cont ending t hat ex post fact o approval of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y can also be obt ained in respect of a t ransfer, which has already t aken place. He subm it s t hat pet it ioner m ay be perm it t ed t o apply for such ex post fact o approval.

14. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat he has no obj ect ion, if pet it ioner is perm it t ed t o m ake applicat ion for such approval.

15. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion is disposed of wit h libert y t o pet it ioner t o m ake applicat ion for ex post fact o approval, t o t ransfer t he land t o a person not belonging t o Scheduled cast e, t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. I f he m akes such applicat ion wit hin t hree 6 t oday, t he Com pet ent Aut horit y shall consider pet it ioner ’s request and t ake decision t hereupon, as per law, wit hin t hree m ont hs from t he dat e of receipt of such applicat ion along wit h cert ified copy of t his order. ________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J.

01.05.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726 FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL 7