Aman Singh And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5197 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
AFR
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36785 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Aman Singh And 3 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Mishra,Dhawan Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that proceedings initiated on 16.6.2015 by the Respondent No. 2, the Collector/District Magistrate, Meerut, District - Meerut, numbered as Nil of 2015 be quashed.

When on 6.4.1979, the Ceiling Authorities had declared 76 bighas, 16 biswas and 11 biswansis of land surplus of the D.C.M. Sri Ram Industries Ltd. and when the ceiling proceedings were finalized by the High Court, the petitioners along with the other tenure holders were granted pattas on the surplus land. When by the order dated 23/27 July 2014, the Bhumidhari rights of the petitioners which had accrued to them over the allotted land under Section 131B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as ''the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act') were being withdrawn, the petitioners alongwith the other tenure holders had filed Writ - C No. 51745 of 2014. This writ petition was ultimately allowed on 28.3.2017. Thereafter, when another proceeding under Section 27(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Ceiling Act') was initiated, the petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ - C No. 19819 of 2015 which was also allowed on 28.9.2018 and the entire proceedings were quashed.

The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings which were initiated by the notice dated 16.6.2015, by which the Respondent No. 2 had sought to declare the allotted plots of land under Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as having vested in the State since the petitioners had made certain transactions which were in violation of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Learned counsel has assailed the proceedings which were initiated under Sections 166 & 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, on the following amongst other grounds:-

(i) Learned counsel had stated that the permission under Section 157-A and 157-AA of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act was required to be taken only if there was some transfer by means of sale, gift, mortgage or lease by the Bhumidhar and he, therefore, submits that when the allegation was only to the effect that the petitioners had entered into some agreement to sell the land in question with certain persons, then it could not be said that there was any transfer yet and, therefore, it could not also be said that there was any violation of any provision of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Learned counsel read out Sections 157-A, 157-AA, 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and, therefore the same are being reproduced here as under:-

157-A. Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes. - (1)Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste shall have the right to transfer any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, except with the previous approval of the Collector:

Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Collector in case where the land held in Uttar Pradesh by the transfer on the date of application under this section is less than 1.26 hectares or where the area of land so held in Uttar Pradesh by the transferor on the said date is after such transfer, likely to be reduced to less than 1.26 hectares.

(2) The collector shall, on an application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, make such inquiry as may be prescribed.

157-AA. Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131-B. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A, and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference:-

(a) landless agricultural labourer;

(b) marginal farmer;

(c) small farmer; and

(d) a person other than a person referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c).

(2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in Clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in Clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in Clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section if a person referred to in Clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (d) of the said sub-section in the same order of preference:-

(a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate;

(b) secondly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate;

(c) thirdly, if no person referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate.

(3) If no person referred to in Sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in Sub-sections (1) and (2).

(4) No transfer under this section shall be made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned.

[(5) A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour.]"

166. Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be void.

167.(1) The following consequences shall ensue in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely-

(a) the subject-matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances;

(b) the trees, crops and wells existing on the land on the date of transfer shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances;

(c) The transferee may remove other movable property or the materials of any immovable property existing on such land on the date of transfer within such time as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub-section (1) , it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. For the purposes of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorised occupants , the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary."

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the proceedings, as is clear from the chronology of events, is yet another effort of the State to take back the land which was given to the petitioners by way of pattas on the land which was declared surplus.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier when right had vested in the petitioners under Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was being sought to be withdrawn, the petitioners had filed a writ petition being Writ - C No. 51745 of 2014 which was allowed on 28.3.2017. When again the land was being sought to be taken away from them saying that the pattas were granted in violation of Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act then Writ Petition No. 19819 of 2015 had to be filed which was allowed on 28.9.2018 and this proceeding, he submits, was also initiated only to add another litigation vis-a-vis the petitioners so that the State may take back the land in question.

(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon 1977 SC 2421 (T.Arivandandam vs. T.V. Stayapal and Ors.) submitted that this litigation, just as earlier ones, was a vexatious litigation and had no legs to stand. Learned counsel submits that when there was yet no transfer then proceedings could not have been initiated saying that the petitioners were transferring their land.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Respondent No. 2 is supposed to be an educated individual who should know the meaning of the word "transfer" which means a sale, gift, mortgage or a lease. Learned counsel submits that by no stretch of imagination an agreement to sell could be termed to be a transfer and he, therefore, submits that the proceedings were vexatious in nature and should be quashed. Not only this the petitioners submit that the petitioners, for having been embroiled in such useless litigations, should be compensated by payment of damages. He, therefore, submits that the proceedings be quashed and the petitioners be compensated.

Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply, submitted that proceedings which were sought to be quashed were in their inceptive stage and, therefore, this court may not interfere. If the petitioners, so desired, they could file their replies to the notices which had been served upon them. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that an agreement to sell is a stage which culminated in the sale of a land and, therefore, if the petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell then they had to face the consequences.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that ever since the petitioners were granted pattas, the State in collusion with the earlier land holders i.e. D.C.M. Sri Ram Industries Ltd. had been trying to oust the petitioners from the plots of land which were allotted to them. Earlier the petitioners along with other tenure holders were being deprived of their rights of being Bhumidars with transferable rights and, therefore, they had to file Writ Petition No. 51745 of 2014, which was allowed on 28.3.2017. Subsequently when the petitioners were again sought to be ousted from their land saying that the land which was granted to them was granted by an officer who was not authorized to grant the pattas then they had to file yet another Writ Petition No. 19819 of 2015 which came to be allowed on 28.9.2018. Now this third writ petition, the petitioners had to file owing to the fact that wrongly proceedings were initiated against them for entering into agreements to sell. Definitely an agreement to sell cannot be termed a transfer. From the perusal of the notice, which is attached to the petition, it becomes abundantly clear that the notice was a vexatious one.

Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the judgment reported in 1977 Supreme Court 2421 which were referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners would be relevant in the instant case and, therefore, they are being reproduced here as under:-

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints.

The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men,(Ch. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good.

6. The trial court in this case will remind itself of s. 35-A C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival value and should be disposed of forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned.

7. We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High-Court by a callous party. We more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to the Court a case which was disingenuous or worse. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will activate this obligation. We are constrained to make these observations and hope that the co-operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench for spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such as the one we are disposing of. Another moral of this unrighteous chain litigation is the gullible grant of ex parte orders tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A judge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial process. We must appreciate Shri Ramasesh for his young candour and correct advocacy.".

The Supreme Court has shunned Courts from entertaining vexatious litigations. When there was no transfer taking place and only an agreement to sell had been entered into between petitioners and some other persons then it could not be said that any violation of any provision of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had taken place and, thus, it can conveniently be said that the proceedings which were initiated were absolutely vexatious and should not have been initiated at all.

The way the petitioners have been burdened with proceedings after proceedings clearly shows that the state had been acting vexatiously and maliciously and, therefore, the petitioners should be compensated for having been troubled with all the litigations.

Under such circumstances, the proceeding initiated by the notice dated 16.6.2015 is quashed and the petitioners shall be individually compensated by the respondents by giving to them Rs. 50,000/- each. This compensation shall be borne by State Government.

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 30.5.2019

praveen.

(Siddhartha Varma,J.)