# Mool Chand v. The Commissioner, Meerut Division and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28519 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mool-chand-v-the-commissioner-meerut-division-and-others-41839
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act-Section
157-APermission for sale-by schedule cast
tenure holder to non S.C. Candidaterejected by the authorities-ignoring the
aspect that for payment of loan-open
market shall fetch better market value
than auction sale-held-provision of 157A-enacted for welfare of S.C. But not to
harass them-petitioner given liberty to
sell entire land or any piece of land to
any one even General Candidate-but in
future not entitled to claim allotment of
Gaon Sabha land.
1 All] Mool Chand V. The Commissioner, Meerut Division and others
373
Held: Para 2

The provisions of Section157-A are for
the benefit of the scheduled caste. It can
not be interpreted and applied in such
manner that it becomes detrimental to
them. There is no finding that some non
scheduled caste purchaser wanted to
exploit the petitioner by purchasing his
land.

## Text

372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
7.8.2009 is quashed . The District
Magistrate shall now forward the entire
documents relating to the plea of
cancellation of notification before the
State Govt. The State Govt shall on
receipt of such documents proceed to
take a decision objectively keeping in
view the larger interest of the villagers
and the reports that have been submitted
from time to time as to whether it is
necessary to cancel the notification
under Section 4 or not. This decision
shall be taken by the State Govt within
two
months
from
the
date
of
presentation of the certified copy of this
order.
The
Principal
Secretary
(Revenue), Govt. of U.P. shall proceed
with he matter in the light of the
observations made herein above and
pass an order in accordance with law.
Needless to say that this has to be done
with the aid of the Consolidation
Commissioner of the State and after
obtaining the views of the petitioners,
the concerned Gaon Sabha, and any
other government department without
being
influenced
by
political
considerations or undue influence of
Land Mafias.

28. In the event the State Govt.
holds that there is no necessity to cancel
the notification then in that event the
District Magistrate/Deputy Director of
Consolidation shall proceed to re-assess
the matter in the light of the observations
made herein above and the provisions
noted for the exercise of such powers.

29. Learned counsel for the
respondent has contended that this
Court has already invoked its power in
the case of Mahendra Prasad Vs.
Consolidation Commissioner decided on
22.11.2005 in Writ Petition No. 336 of
2001 and issued directions to proceed
from the stage of preparation of
statement of principles under Section 8.
In the opinion of the Court it is not
necessary for this Court to under take
this
exercise
itself
in
the
given
circumstances of the present case as
reasoned
out
herein
above.
The
aforesaid decision therefore is of no
avail to the contesting respondent.

30. The writ petition stands
accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28519 of 2008

Mool Chand

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Meerut Division &
Others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajiv Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act-Section
157-APermission for sale-by schedule cast
tenure holder to non S.C. Candidaterejected by the authorities-ignoring the
aspect that for payment of loan-open
market shall fetch better market value
than auction sale-held-provision of 157A-enacted for welfare of S.C. But not to
harass them-petitioner given liberty to
sell entire land or any piece of land to
any one even General Candidate-but in
future not entitled to claim allotment of
Gaon Sabha land.
1 All] Mool Chand V. The Commissioner, Meerut Division and others
373
Held: Para 2

The provisions of Section157-A are for
the benefit of the scheduled caste. It can
not be interpreted and applied in such
manner that it becomes detrimental to
them. There is no finding that some non
scheduled caste purchaser wanted to
exploit the petitioner by purchasing his
land.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. No counter affidavit has been
filed by the learned standing counsel
representing the respondents. Petitioner
who is member of Scheduled caste took
some loan from a bank after mortgaging
some of his agricultural land. He could
not repay the loan. Bank threatened to
start
recovery
proceedings.
The
petitioner thought that the only way of
paying the loan was to sell part of his
agricultural
land.
Accordingly,
he
applied on 27.12.2003 for permission to
sell a part of his land to any person
under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act. It is quite obvious that if something
is sold in open market it fetches more
price then the price which may be
obtained by offering to sell the same to
limited number of people. Through the
impugned
order
dated
27.04.2005
contained in Annexure 13 to the writ
petition case no.201/D.L.R.C./2005 the
A.D.M. (Administration),
Ghaziabad
rejected the permission (communicated
the rejection order of Collector dated
24.03.2004). Against the said order
revision was filed in the form of
revision no.71 of 2004-05. It was
specifically argued that the land was
mortgaged to the Syndicate Bank inspite
of it the authorities below held that
there was no reason to grant the
permission. Judicial notice may be taken
of the fact that if land is sold in auction
for realisation of dues, it does not fetch
adequate price. Auction purchaser is
conscious that there may be lot of
litigation in respect of auction, hence he
does not purchase it for the price for
which similar land may be purchased in
open market.

2. The provisions of Section157-A
are for the benefit of the scheduled
caste. It can not be interpreted and
applied in such manner that it becomes
detrimental to them. There is no finding
that some non scheduled caste purchaser
wanted to exploit the petitioner by
purchasing his land.

3. From perusal of Schedule 1 to
the application which is Annexure 6 to
the writ petition it is clear that even
after sale of the aforesaid land, 1.655
hectares land will still remain with the
petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to sell
it any one.

4. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed impugned orders are set aside.
Petitioner's
application
seeking
permission to sell the land of khata
no.534 khasra no.792 ka area 0.316
hectare to some non scheduled caste is
allowed. It is made clear that after
selling the land petitioner will not be
entitled to claim allotment of any gaon
sabha land.
---------
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29406 of 1996

Rajendra Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Subodh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Stamp Act-Section 47-A-stamp dutypurchase
of
agricultural
landsubsequently on basis of report by
Tehsildaar-it was found that small
piece being used as Dharam-KhataAtta Chakki-unless the nature of land
declared otherwise-can not be treated
for commercial purpose-nor any finding
is there regarding use of land for non
agricultural purpose-prior to date of
purchase-demand of additional stamp
duty-held-not legal.

Held: Para 15

In these circumstances I am of the
view that the future use of the land is
irrelevant for the determination of the
market value and payment of stamp
duty. The valuation of the land has to
be assessed on the basis of existing
circle rate/market value of particular
category of the land on the date of
execution
of
sale
deed
and
its
registration
considering
the
other
criteria as discussed above, if any
deviation is there.
Case law discussed:
2008 (8) ADJ 748; 2008 (104) RD 725; 2010
(4) AWC 4232; 2008 (8) ADJ 48; 2009 (2)
ADJ 481

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. Through this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 28.09.1993 and 26.06.1996 passed
by
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Shahjahanpur and
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
U.P., at Allahabad respectively. Vide
order dated 28.09.1993 the respondent
no.2 has found the deficiency of stamp of
Rs.1,47,561.50 and imposed penalty of
the same amount along with Rs. 90/-
registration fee, the total amount comes to
Rs.2,95,213/-,whereas by the subsequent
order the petitioner's revision filed against
the said order was dismissed by the Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority,
U.P.,Allahabad.

2. The facts giving rise to this case
are that the petitioner has purchased the
land measuring about 0.438 aire from plot
nos. 143,144, 145,146/1, 147/1, 148,149
situated at village Hindu Patti, Tehsil
Tilhar,
District
Shahjahanpur
for
consideration of Rs.9000/- and paid stamp
duty worth Rs.1876/-. It appears that the
matter was referred under Section 47 A(1)
of the Stamp Act by the Sub Registrar
before the Collector Stamps. Thereafter a
spot inspection was made by Tehsildar
Tilhar District Shahjahanpur on two
occasions in February, 1993, and in
August, 1993 and following that a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner
disclosing
therein
that
although
the
petitioner has purchased the land of
commercial use but has paid the stamp
duty on agricultural rate. The petitioner has
filed reply to the said notice stating therein
that
petitioner
has
purchased
the
agricultural land and it is being used for
agricultural purposes. The Additional