# Murtja v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2355
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9568 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/murtja-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-52074
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P.Z.A.LR Act-Sections 132,
194, 195 & 198-the plot in question is
recorded as 'Zohad' (pond) in the Revenue
Records-such category is covered u/s 132 of the
Act-no bhumidhari right can accrue-certain land
covered u/s 132 of the Act can be allotted as
Aasami by the land Management Committee as
per the Act-The committee has exercised power
u/s 195 in allotting the land to the vendor of the
Petitioner-lease granted to petitioner rightly
rejected-no right accrued to Petitioner by sale
deed-allotment in favour of vendor was Aasami
lease year to year-Petitioner being a transferee
from the original Aasami cannot acquire rights
over the land.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Murtja Vs.State of U.P. & Ors.
2355
20. The full Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Maqbool Raza
(supra) & judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sukh Ram (supra) cited by
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
nos.3 & 4 will not apply in the instant
matter as there was proper compliance of
Section 240-H of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in
the instant matter and in the full Bench
decision of this Court in Awadhesh Singh
(supra) the full Bench decision of Maqbool
Raza (supra) was taken into consideration.

21. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, the
impugned
judgment
dated
25.3.1975
passed by respondent no.2/ Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation &
judgment
dated
9.8.1978
passed
by
respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of
Consolidation are liable to be set aside and
the same are hereby set aside.

22. The writ petition stands
allowed and order of Consolidation Officer
dated 15.10.1974 is maintained by which
basic year entry was maintained.

23. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 9568 of 2024

Murtja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani

Civil Law - U.P.Z.A.LR Act-Sections 132,
194, 195 & 198-the plot in question is
recorded as 'Zohad' (pond) in the Revenue
Records-such category is covered u/s 132 of the
Act-no bhumidhari right can accrue-certain land
covered u/s 132 of the Act can be allotted as
Aasami by the land Management Committee as
per the Act-The committee has exercised power
u/s 195 in allotting the land to the vendor of the
Petitioner-lease granted to petitioner rightly
rejected-no right accrued to Petitioner by sale
deed-allotment in favour of vendor was Aasami
lease year to year-Petitioner being a transferee
from the original Aasami cannot acquire rights
over the land.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jitendra Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., reported
in 2018(8) ADJ
503

2. Vakila Vs St. of U.P. & ors., reported in 2008(3)
ADJ 444

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

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State Respondents
and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned
counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the
Respondent No. 4, Land Management
Committee.

2. The writ petition has been filed
questioning the legality, propriety and
correctness of the order dated 06.12.2023
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration-II) Saharanpur Division,
Saharanpur in Case No. 629 of 2023, under
Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 as also the order dated 12.12.2023
2356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed
by
the Additional
Collector
(Finance & Revenue) Saharanpur in Case
No. 13 of 2012-13 under Section 115-P of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

3. By the order dated 12.12.2023,
the Additional
Collector
(F
&
R)
Saharanpur after registering a case against
the petitioner under Section 115-P of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has expunged the
name of the petitioner and directed the land
in dispute to be recorded as 'Johad' at the
same time has cancelled the proposal of the
Land
Management
Committee
dated
24.02.1976 and approval dated 06.03.1976.
The Revision preferred by the petitioner
against the said order has also been
dismissed by the order dated 06.12.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the dispute in the
present writ petition relates to Plot No.
110M area 0.1740 which was recorded in
the name of one Mohd. Ali son of
Faimuddin,
as
Bhumidhar
with
Transferable Rights in Khatauni 1419F to
1424F since 1403F. After the death of the
said Mohd. Ali, his sons Zulifikar and
Mustafa and widow Shakila were recorded
under PA-11 by the order of the Revenue
Inspector dated 29.04.2008 and their names
were also reflected in the Khatauni 1419F
to 1424F. Mst. Shakila widow of Mohd.
Ali, Zulfikar and Mustafa executed a sale
deed dated 18.01.2008 in favour of Mustafa
and Murtaza sons of Abdul Latif of the Plot
No. 110/1M area 0.174 hectare and the
names of Mustafa and Murtaza came to be
recorded in the Khatauni 1419F to 1424F
by order of the Tehsildar Nakur, Saharanpur
dated 29.02.2009.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
contends
that
the
Deputy
Collector, Saharanur submitted a report
dated 30.06.2012 to the effect that the Plot
No. 110 area 14 Biswa was recorded as
'Zohad' (Pond). The Land Management
Committee under its resolution dated
24.02.1976
approved
on
06.03.1976
allotted Plot No. 110 area 1 bigha in favour
of Mohd. Ali under an agricultural lease.
After the death of Mohd. Ali, the land stood
recorded in the names of his heirs. The heirs
transferred the land in favour of Mustafa
and Murtaza, sons of Abdul Latif. In the
allotted plot, an area of 0.031 hectare stands
recorded as road and remaining area 0.174
hectare is recorded as 'Johad' (Pond) and
the allotment in favour of Mohd. Ali was
irregular as the land is covered by Section
132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. On the
strength of the report dated 30.06.2012,
proceeding under Section 115-P of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated which
culminated in order dated 12.12.2013. The
Appeal preferred by Mustafa against the
order dated 12.12.2013 was dismissed and
the Revision under Section 333 was also
dismissed. The writ petition filed by
Mustafa was also dismissed. Thereafter the
petitioner preferred a Revision against the
order dated 12.12.2013, which has been
dismissed by the order dated 06.12.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has assailed the orders impugned
primarily on the ground that the Plot No.
110M area 1 Bigha was allotted to Mohd.
Ali son of Faimuddin under the proposal of
the Land Management Committee dated
12.12.1976 which allotment was also
approved on 06.03.1976. The name of the
Vendor of the petitioner was recorded over
the land as Class-2 since 1395F. Out of total
area 1 Bigha, 14 Biswa of Plot No. 110 was
recorded as 'Johad' (Pond). Mohd. Ali
became Bhumidhar of the plot of area 1
Bigha under Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act, 1950. The petitioner purchased
5 All. Murtja Vs.State of U.P. & Ors.
2357
the plot after inspection of the records on
18.01.2008. The petitioner was also
recorded over the plot as Bhumidhar. The
proceedings under Section 115-P of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are ex-facie
illegal and the impugned orders are liable to
be set aside and the writ petition deserves
to be allowed. The sale deed in favour of
the petitioner is still valid and the entry in
the revenue records could be corrected only
after the sale deed as set aside. Reliance is
placed upon the decision of Coordinate
Bench of this court in the case of Jitendra
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2018(8) ADJ 503 and in the
case of Vakila Vs. State of U.P. & others,
reported in 2008(3) ADJ 444.

7. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State Respondents
submits that the Additional Collector (F &
R) Saharanpur after considering all aspects
has recorded finding of fact that the land
allotted to the Vendor of the petitioner was
'Zohad' (Pond) Category 6(1) and covered
by Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 and over which no Bhumidhari Rights
could accrue. The said finding of fact has
also been upheld in Revision and in such
view of the matter no interference is
warranted by this Court in exercise of its
extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed at the
threshold.

8. I have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the State
Respondents and have perused the record
as also the case laws cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner at the Bar.

9. Admittedly, the Plot No. 110 is
Category 6(1) land recorded as 'Zohad'
(Pond) in the Revenue Records. Such
category of land is covered under Section
132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and
no Bhumidhari right can be said to accrue
in respect of such land.

10.

The
Khatauni
extracts
pertaining to the Fasli year 1389 to 1394,
1395 to 1400 filed as Annexure No. 5 to the
writ petition depicts that the original
allottee Mohd. Ali son of Faimuddin was
recorded as Class/ Category-2 Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights over the land
of Plot No. 110/1 as lease holder. Land,
which is covered under Section 132 of the
Act, no Bhumidhari Right can be said to
accrue as provided in the Section itself.
However, certain land which are covered
under Section 132 of the Act can be allotted
as Aasami by the Land Management
Committee but by virtue of Section 197
sub-Section (2) of the Act, the right to admit
any person as Aasami of any tank, pond or
other land covered by water shall be
regulated by the Rules made under the Act.
The allotment of tank, pond or other land
are governed by Government Orders issued
under Section 126 of the Act. The case at
hand is not a case where the allotment has
been done under Section 197(2) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as allotment is as
Asankramani Bhumidhar and not as
Aasami. In the present case, the Land
Management Committee has exercised
power under Section 195 of the Act in
allotting the land to the Vendor of the
petitioner. The Additional Collector under
the impugned order dated 12.12.2013 has
rightly came to the conclusion that the lease
could not have been granted of land which
is covered by Section 132 of the Act.
2358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. In the opinion of the Court, no
rights could have accrued to the petitioner
by virtue of his sale deed dated 18.01.2008
as his vendor had limited rights ad could not
have transferred the leased plots. There is
no dispute as to the fact that Johad Land
(Pond) is land covered by Section 132 of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The status
of the vendor of the petitioner can be of an
Aasami year to year. I am fortified in my
view by the provisions of Section 198(9) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which
contains a deeming clause with regard to
any land specified in Section 132 leased out
to a tenure holder as Sirdar or Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights prior to a
specified date. The Section 198(9) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 is reproduced
below:-

"Section 198(9) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950 :- Where any person has
been admitted to any land specified in
Section 132 as a sirdar or bhumidhar with
non-transferable rights at any time before
the said date and such admission was made
with the previous approval of the Assistant
Collector-in-charge of the sub-division in
respect of the permissible area mentioned
in sub-section (3), then notwithstanding
anything contained in other provisions of
this Act or in the terms and conditions of the
allotment or lease under which such person
was admitted to that land, the following
consequences shall, with effect from the
said date ensure, namely-
(a) the allottee or lessee shall be
deemed to be an asami of such land and
shall be deemed to be holding the same
from year to year and the allotment or lease
of the land to the extent mentioned above
shall not be deemed to be irregular for the
purposes of sub-section (4);
(b) the proceedings, if any, pending
on the said date before the Collector or any
other
Court
or
authority
for
the
cancellation of the allotment or lease of
such land, shall abate.]"

12. The above provisions indicates
that allotments made prior to November 10,
1980 of land specified under Section 132 as
Sirdar or Bhumidhar shall be treated to be a
Aasami year to year. Thus the allotment in
favour of Mohd. Ali Vendor of the
petitioner was in the nature of an Aasami
lease year to year. There is no provision
under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
whereunder an Aasami can be granted
Bhumidhari rights in respect of the land
leased to him and thus permitting him to
transfer the land by way of sale deed. The
petitioner being a transferee from the
original Aasami cannot acquire any rights
over the land. The sale deed dated
18.10.2008 executed in favour of the
petitioner is in fact void ab-initio and no
rights can be said to accrue to the
petitioner therefrom. The Court is not
impressed by the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner that he is a
bonafide purchaser of the plot for
consideration and the impugned orders
could not have been passed till the sale
deed stood cancelled. The Court is also
not impressed with the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that
possession of the plot in question could
not be taken except by filing a suit for
eviction.

13. Section 194 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R.
Act
provides
that
the
Land
Management Committee shall be entitled to
take possession of land comprised in a
holding or part thereof in certain situations
including a situation where the land
covered by Section 132 of the Act was held
by an Aasami and the Aasami has been
ejected or his interest therein has otherwise
5 All. Hem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2359
extinguished. Section 194 of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act, 1950 is reproduced here
under:-

"194.
Land
Management
Committee to take over land after
extinction of interest therein.
-
The
[Land
Management
Committee] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 37
of 1958.] shall be entitled to take
possession of land comprised in a holding
or part thereof if-
(a) [ the land was held by a
bhumidhar, and his interest in such land is
extinguished under Clause (a) or Clause
(aa) of Section 189 or Clause (a), Clause
(b), Clause (c), Clause (cc) or Clause (e) of
Section 190;] [Substituted by U.P. Act No.
8 of 1977 (w.e.f. 28.01.1977).]
(b) [* * *] [Omitted by U.P. Act No.
8 of 1977 (w.e.f. 28.01.1977).]
(c) the land being land falling in
any of the classes mentioned in Section 132,
was held by an asami and the asami has
been ejected or his interest therein have
otherwise
extinguished
under
the
provisions of this Act."

14. Thus the Land Management
Committee/Gaon
Sabha
concerned
is
within its powers to take possession of the
land after interest of Aasami in any land
gets extinguished.

15. In view of the above, this Court
is not inclined to interfere in the orders
impugned. Consequently, the writ petition
is dismissed. However, there will be no
order as to costs,.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2359
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 12796 of 2024

Hem Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Nipun Singh

Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
-
U.P.
Avas
Evam
Vikash
Parishad
Adhiniyam, 1965 - Petitioner was bhumidhar
with transferable rights -by virtue of section 55
of the Adhiniyam-provision of Land Acquisition
Act subject to modifications provided under the
schedule alone would apply-repeal of LA Act
would not affect any right, privilege, obligation
or liability acquired, incurred under the said
enactment-present case acquisition proceedings
were not finalized before 01.01.2014 as no
award was declared by parishad at that timeaward declared in 2024-compensation should be
determined as per the provisions of the new Act,
2013 by treating the reference date of 20214date of enforcement of the New Act-impugned
award quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs Chandra
Shekhar & ors. , (2024) 3 SCR 585

2. Atul Sharma & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2017
(10) ADJ 308

3. Gauri Shankar Gaur Vs St. of U.P., (1994) 1
SCC 92

4. U.P. Avas Ewam Vikas Parishad Vs Jainul Islam
& anr., (1998) 2 SCC 467

5. Nagpur Improvement Trust, AIR 1962 SC 955