# Smt. Jadawati v. The Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Jaunpur & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1104 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-19 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jadawati-v-the-up-zila-adhikari-sadar-jaunpur-anr-44143 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote C.S.C. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition, The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 30 area 0.287 hectares situated in Village Sorani, District Jaunpur. The petitioner is recorded over this plot, having purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1997, executed by one Dhannu. On 12.04.2016, a complaint was made by the second respondent, alleging therein, that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, had been executed by one Dhannu, who belonged to the scheduled caste, without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector contemplated in Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The notice has been issued to the petitioner on this miscellaneous application. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the village is under consolidation operations. The question of any violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can only be determined by the consolidation courts. The A.D.M. Sadar, Jaunpur, the first respondent, has no jurisdiction to go into the question especially when the unit is under consolidation operations. Hence this writ of prohibition. These are purely factual aspects and do not require or entail any declaration, in view of Section 166 of the Act. In case, the petitioner is not able to establish that the sale deed in her favour had been executed after obtaining permission contemplated by Section 157-A of the Act, the sale transaction would be deemed to be void in view of Section 166 of the Act and the consequences of such a deemed void transfer, as enumerated in Section 167, shall necessarily follow, without requiring any declaration. For the same reason, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment in the case of Khageshwar (supra) nor of the interim order dated 24.08.2015 in writ petition no. 43570 of 2015. This writ petition was entertained on the ground that a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be proceeded with during the currency of consolidation operations. Besides, this order has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons given above. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Held: Para- 8 All. Smt. Jadawati Vs The Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Jaunpur & Anr. 1105 Case Law discussed: Maqsooda Khatun Vs. State, 1994 RD 7, Badal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1970 RD 240, Khageshwar Vs. Hoshram AIR 1966 Allahabad 191, ## Text 1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1104 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. Writ C No.- 38380 Of 2016 Smt. Jadawati ...Petitioner Versus The Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Jaunpur & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Suresh Chandra Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition, The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 30 area 0.287 hectares situated in Village Sorani, District Jaunpur. The petitioner is recorded over this plot, having purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1997, executed by one Dhannu. On 12.04.2016, a complaint was made by the second respondent, alleging therein, that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, had been executed by one Dhannu, who belonged to the scheduled caste, without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector contemplated in Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The notice has been issued to the petitioner on this miscellaneous application. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the village is under consolidation operations. The question of any violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can only be determined by the consolidation courts. The A.D.M. Sadar, Jaunpur, the first respondent, has no jurisdiction to go into the question especially when the unit is under consolidation operations. Hence this writ of prohibition. These are purely factual aspects and do not require or entail any declaration, in view of Section 166 of the Act. In case, the petitioner is not able to establish that the sale deed in her favour had been executed after obtaining permission contemplated by Section 157-A of the Act, the sale transaction would be deemed to be void in view of Section 166 of the Act and the consequences of such a deemed void transfer, as enumerated in Section 167, shall necessarily follow, without requiring any declaration. For the same reason, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment in the case of Khageshwar (supra) nor of the interim order dated 24.08.2015 in writ petition no. 43570 of 2015. This writ petition was entertained on the ground that a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be proceeded with during the currency of consolidation operations. Besides, this order has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons given above. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Held: Para- 8 All. Smt. Jadawati Vs The Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Jaunpur & Anr. 1105 Case Law discussed: Maqsooda Khatun Vs. State, 1994 RD 7, Badal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1970 RD 240, Khageshwar Vs. Hoshram AIR 1966 Allahabad 191, (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. Heard Shri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the opposite party no. 1 from proceeding any further with a miscellaneous application dated 12.04.2016 filed by the second respondent. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 30 area 0.287 hectares situated in Village Sonari, District Jaunpur. The petitioner is recorded over this plot, having purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1997, executed by one Dhannu. 4. On 12.04.2016, a complaint was made by the second respondent, alleging therein, that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, had been executed by one Dhannu, who belonged to the scheduled caste, without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector contemplated in Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The notice has been issued to the petitioner on this miscellaneous application. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the village is under consolidation operations. The question of any violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can only be determined by the consolidation courts. The A.D.M. Sadar, Jaunpur, the first respondent, has no jurisdiction to go into the question especially when the unit is under consolidation operations. Hence this writ of prohibition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following three judgments in support of his contention. 7. Maqsooda Khatun Vs. State, 1994 RD 7. In this case it has been held by the Board of Revenue that the question of violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act involves adjudication of rights and correction of papers and, therefore, only the consolidation courts will have jurisdiction during the currency of consolidation operations and that such proceedings shall abate under Section 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 8. Reliance has also been placed upon Badal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1970 RD 240, which is a full Bench decision. It has been held therein that in case limitation to file a suit under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act is present on the date, notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is issued, relief can be granted by the consolidation courts. 1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 9. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Khageshwar Vs. Hoshram AIR 1966 Allahabad 191, wherein it has been held that where an order is without jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition must be issued. 10. I have considered the submissions made and have perused the record as also the judgments cited. 11. In so far as the judgment of the Board of Revenue is concerned, it no doubt holds that proceedings under Section 157-A and Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act shall abate on the start of consolidation operations but, it is not clear from this judgment, as to the point in time, when this issue arose. This is relevant because Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides, that every transfer made in contravention of the provision of this Act, shall be void. This section 166 was substituted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 with effect from 03.06.1981. Section 167 was also newly substituted by the same amending Act. 12. The aforesaid sections were entirely different prior to the amendment aforesaid. The connotations of these two sections have changed completely post this amendment. Till such time it is established that the order of the Board of Revenue pertained to the amended sections, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim any benefit of the said judgment. 13. Prior to this amendment in 1982, the old Section 167 read as follows:- "167. Where a sirdar or asami has made any transfer in contravention of the provision of this Act, the transferee and every other person, who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or part of the holding shall be liable ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the tenure holder, as the case may be." This section was replaced by a new section 167 by the amending Act of 1982 and the substituted section reads as follows. "Section 167. (1) The following consequences shall ensure in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely- (a) the subject-matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (b) the trees, crops and wells existing on the land on the date of transfer shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; and 8 All. Smt. Jadawati Vs The Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Jaunpur & Anr. 1107 (c) the transferee may remove other moveable property or the materials of any immovable property existing on such land on the date of transfer within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. For the purposes of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorised occupants, the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." 14. The following extract from the Prefactory Note No. 1 - Extract from Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill which became Act no. 20 of 1983, with effect from 03.06.1981, reads as follows:- "Under the existing provisions the transfer made in contravention of the provision of the said Act are declared void after following the given procedure. It has been considered necessary to provide that such proceedings shall be deemed to be void and no declaration shall be necessary therefor." 15. A conjoint reading of the pre-factory note above and Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, makes it clear that once Section 157-A of the Act, is violated, a transfer shall be deemed to be void and no declaration in this regard is necessary. It, therefore, necessarily follows that no adjudication of any right title or interest is involved when it is required to be considered as to whether Section 157-A of the Act has been violated. It is also clear that the authorities can, even without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, hold in case there is material to support the same, that Section 157-A of the Act has been violated and thereafter it is open for the Collector to enter into possession over the property which is subject matter of a sale executed in violation of Section 157-A. He is also entitled to use such force as is necessary for the said purpose. 16. Section 166 therefore creates a legal fiction whereunder any transfer made, also in violation of Section 157-A of the Act, is void. The only question, therefore, to be examined is as to whether or not there has been any violation of a provision of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the same does not entail any adjudication or declaration regarding rights and title of the parties, in view of the legal fiction created by Section 166. 17. I therefore do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a declaration of title is inherent in the proceedings initiated by the notice dated 12.04.2016, issued by the first respondent to the petitioner. 18. For the same reason, it cannot be held that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the notice and that the issue involved can be decided only by the consolidation courts during currency of consolidation operations. Hence, no writ of prohibition can be issued. 1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 19. In pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner, the only point to be examined is whether or not the vendor of the petitioner belonged to the scheduled caste and whether or not he had obtained prior permission contemplated by Section 157-A, to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 20. These are purely factual aspects and do not require or entail any declaration, in view of Section 166 of the Act. In case, the petitioner is not able to establish that the sale deed in her favour had been executed after obtaining permission contemplated by Section 157-A of the Act, the sale transaction would be deemed to be void in view of Section 166 of the Act and the consequences of such a deemed void transfer, as enumerated in Section 167, shall necessarily follow, without requiring any declaration. 21. For the same reason, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment in the case of Khageshwar (supra) nor of the interim order dated 24.08.2015 in writ petition no. 43570 of 2015. This writ petition was entertained on the ground that a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be proceeded with during the currency of consolidation operations. Besides, this order has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons given above. 22. In view of the above discussion, no ground for issuing a writ of prohibition exists. 23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ----------- 8 All. Babu Singh Vs State Of U.P. 1109 (2016) 8 ILRA 1109 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAXMI, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 121 Of 1982 Babu Singh ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsels for the Appellant: Shri Kameshwar Prasad, Shri A.K. Awasthi, Shri Manish Tiwari, Shri V.C. Tewari Counsel for the Respondent: A.G.A. Held - Introduction and Status of the Appeal This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 22, 1981, passed by the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, convicting the accused under Sections 148 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The appeal was originally filed by three convicts, but two of them (Babu Singh and Narain Singh) died during its pendency, causing the appeal to abate against them in 2012 and 2016 respectively. Vijay Singh is the sole surviving appellant. The trial court sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and eighteen months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C., to run concurrently. The Prosecution Narrative The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by Deshraj Kapoor (PW2), stating that on February 17, 1974, accused Babu Singh threatened his servant, Ramdas, over a dispute regarding cutting grass from a field boundary (medh). On October 19, 1974, eyewitnesses informed PW2 that Ramdas had been mercilessly beaten near a canal culvert; PW2 rushed to the spot, found Ramdas severely injured, and moved him to the hospital. The victim, Ramdas, stated that he was surrounded by Babu Singh (armed with a gun), Narain Singh and Vijay Singh (both armed with spears), two other unnamed sons of Babu Singh, and 6 to 7 unidentified persons who assaulted him on Babu Singh's exhortation. Medical Evidence and Trial Proceedings The medical examination conducted by Dr. R.K. Mehrotra (PW1) revealed six major injuries on Ramdas, including three deep stab wounds with clean-cut margins on his chest, alongside lacerations and contused abrasions. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet; the Sessions Court subsequently framed charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 I.P.C., to which the appellant pleaded not guilty.