Allahabad High Court
Zulfiqar Ali vs State Of U.P.Thr.Secy Revenue And ... on 25 July, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 21
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 2995 of 2008
Petitioner :- Zulfiqar Ali
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Secy Revenue And 3 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh,G.C.Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.N.Gupta
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for respondents.
The following facts are admitted to learned counsel for both the parties:
(i) Plot No.691, area 2.90 acres was allotted in 1975 to Sri Badlu, father of the petitioner, Badlu died in or about 1986, Badlu left behind two legal representatives/ sons i.e. petitioner and Faiznoor whose names were mutated in the revenue records by order dated 01.02.1987.
(ii) Faiznoor sold his half share through registered sale deed dated 27.11.2005. Copy of the sale deed has been filed by learned standing counsel along with supplementary counter affidavit.
(iii) On the basis of the said sale deed proceedings for cancellation of patta were initiated against the petitioner, his brother and some others.
First of all, learned standing counsel has not been able to point out any provision under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under which patta may be cancelled on the ground of sale.
Secondly, by virtue of Section 131-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was added w.e.f. 14.01.1995, those persons, who were allotted patta by the gaon sabha and admitted as bhoomidhar with non-trasnsferable rights became bhoomidhar with transferable rights provided that before amendment they were continuing as bhoomidhar with non-trasnferable rights for ten years. The allotment in favour of father of the petitioner was of the year 1975 hence by virtue of Section 131-B, petitioner and his brother became bhoomidhar with transferable rights hence there was absolutely nothing wrong in transfer of his share in the land in dispute by petitioner's brother.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders details of which are given below are quashed:
(i) Order dated 20.09.2005 passed by Additional Collector, Khiri, Lakhimpur Khiri, State Vs. Faiznoor and others in Case No.331/193.
(ii) Order dated 11.04.2008 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) in Revision No.1024 of 2005-06, which was heard along with two other revisions. The revisions were directed against the order dated 20.09.2005.
Learned standing counsel states that after passing of the first order petitioner was dispossessed and land was allotted to some other persons, who are probably five in numbers. However as the cancellation order has been set aside hence possession has to be redelivered to the petitioner and he has to be recorded as bhoomidhar with transferable rights over half portion of the total land which was allotted to his father.
Even the names of allottees are not known to the learned standing counsel. Accordingly, it is directed that petitioner must be redelivered possession from the allottees and the allottees may be provided equivalent land by Gaon Sabha, if available. However, allottees, who have not been heard may apply for hearing by filing an application in this very writ petition.
Supplementary counter affidavit stated to have been filed by learned standing counsel on 15.07.2013 is not on record. Its duplicate copy has been supplied by learned standing counsel. The original, if traced, may be placed in the record.
Order Date :- 25.07.2013
NLY
