# Dayali & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 694
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25388 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dayali-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49511
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sri
Achal
Singh,
Sri
Ambhuj
Srivasatava

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006-Any
person belongs to Scheduled Caste community-
has been extended lease of a particular plot -
after passage of time- rights have been incurred
in favour of person belongs to Scheduled Caste
community as bhumidhar with transferable
rights -for the same plot and recorded in the
revenue records - in case, part of the same plot
has been transferred in contravention with the
provisions u/s 98 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
the same has been determined against the
person
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste
community- entire plot shall not be vest with the
St.- only part transfer in contravention of the
sec. 98 of Code, 2006 -provisions available in
Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
shall vest with the St. and other left out portion
of the same plot- shall remain with the recorded
tenure holder belongs to Scheduled Caste
community-impugned order modified.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

## Text

694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applications
under
Section
67A
to
provisions
of
the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, such
reference or reliance, in my considered
opinion, is not tenable because on date,
as also on the date the applications under
Section 67A have been filed by the
petitioners, the said Act, namely U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act stood repealed.

17. In view of the foregoing,
these writ petitions lack force and are
accordingly dismissed."

15. In view of the ratio of law laid
down by this court in Raju (supra) and
Bajnath (supra) petitioners are not entitled
to any type of declaration or settlement as
provided under Section 67A of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 in exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India by way of writ of
mandamus.

16. So far as case law of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Manorey alias Manohar
(supra) is concern, the ratio of Manorey
alias Manohar (supra) is not available to
petitioners as petitioners have failed to
demonstrate from any evidence on record
that petitioners were in possession over the
plot in dispute which is the mandatory
condition for settlement under Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case no interference is
required in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India by way
of writ of mandamus.

18. Writ petition is dismissed
accordingly.

----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 694
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 25388 of 2023

Dayali & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Prakash Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Achal
Singh,
Sri
Ambhuj
Srivasatava

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006-Any
person belongs to Scheduled Caste community-
has been extended lease of a particular plot -
after passage of time- rights have been incurred
in favour of person belongs to Scheduled Caste
community as bhumidhar with transferable
rights -for the same plot and recorded in the
revenue records - in case, part of the same plot
has been transferred in contravention with the
provisions u/s 98 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
the same has been determined against the
person
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste
community- entire plot shall not be vest with the
St.- only part transfer in contravention of the
sec. 98 of Code, 2006 -provisions available in
Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
shall vest with the St. and other left out portion
of the same plot- shall remain with the recorded
tenure holder belongs to Scheduled Caste
community-impugned order modified.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash
Kushwaha,
learned
counsel
for
the
12 All. Dayali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari,
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent nos.1,2 and 4 as well as Sri
Ambuj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief
of Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3.

2. Present petition has been filed with
the prayer to quash the order dated
06.03.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in
Case No.501/122/2013-14, Computer Case
No.C20140700001122 (Dayali and others
Vs. U.P. State), under Section 333 of U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and order dated
30.10.1991 passed by respondent no.2 in
Case No.458 and further direction be issued
to expunge the name of State from Gata
No.872 area 0.595 hectare situated at
Village Itawan, Tehsil Rajapur, District
Chitrakoot.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
plot nos.872 and 3414/1 have been
extended as lease way back in the year
1974 in favour of the petitioners' father and
name of the father of the petitioners has
been recorded in the revenue record as
bhumidhar with non transferable right
which is apparent from the record of rights
appended with the petition. Thereafter,
father of the petitioners executed a sale
deed on dated 26.11.1984 in respect of plot
no.3414/1, in pursuance of the registered
sale deed executed by father of the
petitioners, mutation proceedings have
been initiated by purchaser and the same
has
been
negated
vide
order
dated
30.10.1991 by way of giving categorical
findings that the possession held by father
of the petitioners over the plot no. 3414/1
was under the capacity of bhumidhar with
non transferable rights and as such, under
Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950,
the sale deed executed by father of the
petitioners became void and plot nos.872
and 3414/1 vested with the State. In
pursuance of the order dated 30.10.1991,
revenue records have been modified in
shape of entering the name of the State
against plot no.3414/1.

4. Being aggrieved with the order
dated 30.10.1991, petitioners preferred a
revision under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950 after demise of their father
with categorical stand that once the sale
deed has been executed by father of the
petitioners
only
in
respect
of
plot
no.3414/1, the order passed by respondent
no.2 with regard to plot no.872, cannot be
vested with the State, but the grounds
mentioned in the revision have not been
accepted by the respondent no.1 and the
same has been culminated into order dated
6.03.2023 which impugned the present
petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
raised his arguments on the ground that it is
the settled proposition of law that only plot
no.3414/1 which has been put for transfer
without having right, only that plot shall be
vested with the State under Section 166 of
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 but the other
plots if possessed by the lessee, shall not be
transferred and as such, the order dated
30.10.1991 passed by respondent no.2 and
the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by
respondent no.1 are illegal and the same are
contrary to the provisions contained under
Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

6. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel and learned counsel for Gram
Sabha vehemently opposed the prayer as
made in the instant petition on the ground
that once the illegal action has been carried
out in shape of transferring the land
through registered sale deed for the plots
which have been already extended in shape
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of lease in favour of the father of the
petitioners then the action initiated by
respondent no.2 was justified and the
petitioners/father of the petitioners are
having no right to retain the plots as
extended in shape of lease.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners
substantiated his arguments on the basis of
Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"103. Transfer in contravention
of the provisions of the Code (Section
105). - (1) If a bhumidhar or an asami has
transferred his interest in any holding or
part thereof which is void under section
104, the Lekhpal shall promptly submit a
report
to
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
containing particulars specified in rule
97(1).

(2) On receipt of the report of the
Lekhpal
under
subrule
(1),
or
on
information received otherwise, the SubDivisional Officer shall call upon the
parties to the transfer to show cause, why
action under section 104 read with section
105 should not be taken in respect of the
land in question.

(3) After hearing the parties and
making
such
inquiries
as
may
be
considered necessary, if the Sub-Divisional
Officer is satisfied that the transfer in
question is void under section 104, he shall
declare that-

a) the subject matter of such
transfer shall vest in the State Government;

b) the trees, crops, well and other
improvements existing on the holding or
part shall vest in the State Government free
from all encumbrances; and

(c) the interests of the transferor
as well as of the transferee stood
extinguished, from the date of such
transfer.

(4) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall direct that the revenue records should
be corrected accordingly and where the
transfer in contravention of the provisions
of the Code relates to a part of the holding,
he shall also fix land revenue in respect of
the part left with the transferor in
accordance with Chapter XI of these rules.

(5) Every order of the SubDivisional Officer under this rule shall be
endorsed to the Samiti for necessary action.

(6) Where any property referred
to in section 105 has vested in the State
Government, the Collector may evict any
person in unauthorised occupation of such
property and deliver possession thereof to
the Gram Panchayat concerned."

8. While fine scrutiny of Rule 103 as
reproduced
above,
is
having
clear
distinction between holding or part under
Rule 103 (3)(b) and thereafter same has
been further clarified under Section 103(4)
which clearly speaks about transfer in
contravention of provisions of the Code
relates to part of the holding, meaning
thereby, if in case, any person belongs to
Scheduled Caste community, has been
extended lease of a particular plot and after
passage of time, rights have been incurred
in favour of person belongs to Scheduled
Caste community as bhumidhar with
transferable rights for the same plot and
recorded in the revenue records and in case,
part of the same plot has been transferred in
contravention with the provisions contained
under Section 98 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 and the same has been determined
12 All. M/s Manali Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697
against the person belonging to Scheduled
Caste community, the entire plot shall not
be vest with the State, whereas only part of
the plot which has been put to transfer in
contravention of the provisions defined
under Section 98 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 and provisions available in Rule 103
of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, shall
vest with the State but at the same time,
other left out portion of the same plot, shall
remain with the recorded tenure holder
belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

9. In view of the abovementioned
facts and legal grounds, the order dated
30.10.1991 passed by respondent no.2 and
the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by
respondent no.1 are being modified to the
extent that only plot no.3414/1 situated at
Village Itawan, Tehsil Rajapur, District
Chitrakoot, shall be vested in the State but
the plot no.872M shall be intact in favour
of the petitioners as bhumidhar with non
transferable rights.

10. The instant petition is partly
allowed accordingly.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 697
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ-C No. 26588 of 2023

M/s Manali Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Swati Singh, Sri Birendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963-Petitioner had
applied for a license/permit- petitioner's tender
was accepted a permit was granted- permit
itself provided that during the monsoon season
no mining would be done- petitioner could not
work because of the intervening litigation which
was initiated in the National Green Tribunal-also
suffered financially- impugned order virtually
prohibits the petitioner from further mining-the
petitioner be refunded the amount of royalty for
the period he did not work. W.P. allowed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.28916 of 2016

2. Beg Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. JT 2002
(10) SC 417

3. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goa Foundation
& ors., AIR 2020 SC 4870

4. Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 93

5. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.28916 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

(1) The petitioner had applied for a
license/permit when an advertisement was
issued inviting E- tenders under Rule
23(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. When
the petitioner's tender was accepted a
permit was granted to him for six months
on payment of Rs.2,77,20,000/-. The
mining was to commence on 09.05.2022
and end on 08.01.2023. The permit itself
provided that during the monsoon season