Sahab Singh vs The Additional Commissioner And 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 27199 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191974
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23709 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sahab Singh
 
Respondent :- The Additional Commissioner And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application dated 5.10.2023

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. Office is directed to allot number to the instant application.

3. In view of the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the writ petition by adding ground No.5 in the memo of writ petition during course of the day.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter-affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a sale deed was executed on 7.8.2000 by Sri Uttam Singh in favour of petitioner (Sahab Singh) in respect to plot No. 170-M area 0.648 hectare situated in Village- Simara, Pargana and Tehsil- Pooranpur, District- Pilibhit. A proceeding under Section 157-AA read with Section 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated in respect to aforementioned sale deed executed on 7.8.2000 as vendor Uttam Singh alleged to belong Scheduled Caste and vendee (petitioner- Sahab Singh) belong to Sikh Community (non-scheduled caste), the proceeding was registered as case No. 13/ 2008-09 before respondent no.2, Collector- Pilibhit. The aforementioned case No. 13/ 2008-09 was decided by respondent no.2, Collector- Pilibhit vide order dated 27.9.2010 vesting the plot in dispute in favour of the State of U.P. Petitioner challenged the order dated 27.09.2010 by way of revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly. The aforementioned revision was heard by respondent no.1, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 1.11.2022. The restoration application dated 4.1.2023 filed by petitioner along with prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected vide order dated 16.3.2023 hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner against the impugned orders dated 27.9.2010 passed by respondent no.2 and orders dated 1.11.2022 as well as 16.3.2023 passed by respondent no. 1.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order has been passed in the proceeding under Section 157-AA/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by respondent no.2 who is not competent to pass the order in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case reported in 2012 (116) RD 69 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others as well as judgment dated 10.8.2023 passed in Writ C No. 18585 of 2023 Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others. He further submitted that in the instant matter, the order has been passed by the Collector which has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition which is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed on technical ground which is also illegal and against the justice oriented approach.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that although the order had been passed by the Collector who is not competent to pass this order but there is violation of the provisions contained under Section 157-AA/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as such, the impugned order is in accordance with law and no interference is required in the matter.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that impugned order dated 27.9.2010 has been passed by the Collector in the proceeding under Section 157-AA/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy, the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) in Paragraph Nos 21 to 25 will be relevant which are as under:-

"21. A plain and simple reading of Section 3(4) of the Act and Sections 14, 14-A and 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act makes it clear that the Collector includes Additional Collector as well as Assistant Collector and is authorised to discharge the powers and duties conferred upon him under the Act or in any other law in force. The aforesaid Acts do not confer upon the Collector the power to declare a transaction to be void under Section 166 of the Act being violative of Section 154 or 157-A of the Act. Such power is vested only in the Assistant Collector First Class who may be authorised by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector but converse to it is not permitted. The duties and functions assigned therein to the Assistant Collector First Class under law are not to be discharged by the Collector even though he may be the controlling authority of the Assistant Collectors First Class. He is not authorised to take over the functions assigned to the Assistant Collectors. Thus, Collector is not supposed to discharge the functions specifically assigned to the Assistant Collectors under the above two Acts including that of declaring a transfer to be void.

22. Apart from the above the initial order which was challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner was passed by the Assistant Collector First Class and, therefore, also on the order being set-aside in appeal, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class.

23. Accordingly, I answer the question by holding that the Assistant Collector First Class is the competent authority to declare any transaction of agricultural land void under Section 166 of the Act, if it is in contravention of Section 154 and 157-A of the Act or as a matter of fact,of any other provision of the Act.

24. In such a situation, the Additional Commissioner committed an error of law in remanding the matter to the Collector.

25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.8.2010 is modified to the extent that the matter stands remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class in place of the Collector as directed."

9. This Court in the recent judgment dated 10.8.2023 passed in Sudheer Kumar Jain (Supra) has followed the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) and held that Collector or Additional Collector have no jurisdiction to pass the order in the proceeding under Section 157-AA/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act vesting the land in State.

10. The perusal of the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) and Sudheer Kumar Jain (Supra) fully demonstrate that Collector cannot pass order in proceeding under Section 157-AA/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act vesting the land in State Government, as such, an impugned order dated 27.9.2010 passed by Collector cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

11. So far as the Revisional proceeding is concerned which has been decided on technical grounds and the order passed by Collector has been maintained, as such, the revisional proceeding/ order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 16.3.2023 and 1.11.2022 passed by respondent no.1 and 27.9.2010 passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed. However the competant authority can proceed in accordance with law with respect to sale deed executed on 7.8.2000.

Order Date :- 5.10.2023

Vandana Y.