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

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1916
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1295 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharmendra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45086
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1 All. Smt. Rajeshwari Vs. Commissioner/Additional Commissioner (J), 4th Division, Meerut & Ors. 1917
Assistant Collector. If this is not the vaild
and correct interpretation of sub-section
(4) of Section 157-AA of the Act, subsections (1) and (2) would be rendered
redundant."

7. The contention therefore raised by
the counsel for the petitioner is without
merit.

8. The second question is whether
the permission required under Section
157AA can be granted Ex Post Facto. In
my considered opinion, the permission
cannot be granted Ex Post Facto because
the permission contemplated by Section
157AA is for sale by a member of
scheduled caste to another scheduled caste
only. However, amongst scheduled caste
who can purchase land, whose vendor has
become bhumidhar with transferable rights
under Section 131 B, is to be determined
in the order of preference provided by the
section itself. In this regard, again it would
be relevant to refer to the judgement of
Amichandra (supra) wherein it has been
observed:-

"Moreover this Section, 157-AA
of the Act permits transfers between two
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes
only. The only exception carved out by
sub-section (3) of this Section is that if
transferee belonging to a Schedule Caste
is not available. Then a transfer in favour
of a member of a Scheduled tribe may be
permitted
in
accordance
with
the
conditions
and
order
of
preference
specified in the section itself. Even
otherwise, the section provides for various
categories of persons who are entitled to
purchase the land in the order of
preference given. A person in a higher
category shall have preference over a
person in the lower category mentioned.

.................

It therefore necessarily follows
that before a transfer is effected, it has to
be determined as to the category under
which the prospective vendee falls and
whether another person of the Scheduled
Caste, who is in a higher preferential
category
is
available
or
not.
This
determination has to be made and duly
recorded prior to the transfer itself.

It is in this context that subsection (4) has been introduced which
mandates that in case, a person is entitled
to execute a sale-deed, etc. in favour of
person(s) belonging to the Scheduled
Caste, such transfer shall not be without
prior
permission
of
the
Assistant
Collector. If this is not the valid and
correct interpretation of sub-section (4) of
Section 157-AA of the Act sub-sections (1)
and (2) would be rendered redundant.
Moreover, there appears no justification
for obtaining the said permission once a
transfer has already been made."

9. The determination of order of
preference etc. under Section 157-AA has
to be made prior to the sale deed or at best
on the date of sale deed. Such a
determination being made subsequently,
when circumstances might have undergone
a change, would not be valid. Therefore,
even the second contention of counsel for
the petitioner has no merit.

10. In view of the forgoing, the writ
petition
is
without
merit
and
is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1916

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2019

BEFORE
1918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 1295 of 2008

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.P. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri V.K. Singh

A. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Land in question -
public utility land u/s 132 of the Actallotment cannot be made of such landAdditional Collector has the power to
cancel the allotment-when he acts and
discharges the duties and functions of the
Collector-power would be deemed to
have been exercised by him as the
Collector.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

Cases cited: -

1. Braahm Singh vs. Board of Revenue & other,
AIR 2008 All 144

2. Seetla vs. St. Of U.P. & ors. (Writ C no.
11406/2012)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri O.P.Rai, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Naushad
Siddiqui,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present petition seeks to
challenge the order dated 04.08.2006
passed by the respondent no. 3 in
proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the
U.P.Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 19501 and also the order
dated 13.11.2007 passed by the respondent
no. 2 in Revision No. 97 of 2006/07
whereby the order cancelling the allotment
has been affirmed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has not
disputed the fact that the land in question
was a public utility land of the nature as
described under Section 132 of the 1950
Act. That being the position, the allotment
of the said land could not have been made
and there is no illegality in the proceedings
which have been initiated for cancellation
of the allotment.

4. As regards the other contention
that the order of cancellation of allotment
could have been made only by the
Collector and not by the Additional
Collector, this Court may take notice of
the fact that the aforesaid question has
been settled by a Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Brahm Singh Vs. Board of
Revenue and others2.

5. The Full Bench in the case of
Brahm Singh (supra) while considering
the question as to whether the powers of
the Collector under Section 198 (4) of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 can be exercised by the
Additional
Collector
held
that
the
Additional Collector when he acts and
discharges the duties and functions or
exercises such powers of a Collector either
under the 1901 Act or under any other Act
for the time being in force, the powers
would be deemed to have been exercised
by him as Collector of the district under
that Act. The relevant observations made
in this regard are as follows :-

"14. It is the above provision
under which the Additional Collector is
1 All. Dharmendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1919
appointed by the State Government. Subsections (3) and (4) of Section 14A in the
present form were enacted by U.P. Act No. 21
of 1962. Under Sub-section (3) of Section
14A, the Additional Collector exercises all
such powers and discharges such duties of
Collector in such cases or class of cases as the
Collector concerned directs. Sub-section (4) of
Section 14A further provides that the
Additional Collector while exercising power
and discharging duties under Sub-section (3)
under this Act, i.e 1901 Act and under any
other law for the time being applicable to the
Collector, acts as a Collector of the district. In
other words, the Additional Collector exercises
powers and discharges duties under Subsection (3) of Section 14A as Collector of the
district. Therefore, by legal fiction the order
passed and the jurisdiction exercised by the
Additional Collector by virtue of Sub-section
(3) of Section 14A would be deemed to be that
of a Collector of the district because of Subsection (4) of Section 14A of 1901 Act. Thus,
the Additional Collector when acts and
discharges duties and functions or exercises
such powers of a Collector either under 1901
Act or under any other Act for the time being
in force, that would be deemed to have been
exercised by him as Collector of the district
under that Act. Thus, the Additional Collector
has all the powers of a Collector under Subsection (4) of Section 14A when he exercises
power under Sub-section (3) of Section 14A."

6. The aforementioned position with
regard
to
the
Additional
Collector
exercising powers of the Collector has
been considered by this Court in the
context of the provisions of Section 28 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in a
recent judgment in the case of Seetla Vs.
State of U.P. and others3.

7. It may therefore be reiterated that
Additional Collector when he acts and
discharges the duties and functions or
exercises such powers of a Collector either
under the 1901 Act or under any other Act
for the time being in force, the powers
would be deemed to have been exercised
by him as Collector of the district under
that Act.

8. The argument raised by the
petitioner with regard to the Additional
Collector not having jurisdiction to pass
the order impugned is thus legally not
tenable.

9. No other point has been urged.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has not
been able to point out any material error or
irregularity in the orders which are sought
to be challenged so as to warrant
interference of this Court in exercise of
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

11. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1918

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 4844 of 2019

M/S Auto Service ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Sri Ram Dayal
Tiwari,
Sri
Ashwani
Srivastava