# Smt. Meeru Seth v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 858
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 21618 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meeru-seth-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-50777
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
- Rule 103 - Transfer of land belonging to
Scheduled Caste persons to a member of the
non-SC category without prior permission of the
Collector is void under Section 104 read with
Section 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
However, under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue
Code Rules, 2016, it is the Sub-Divisional
Officer (SDO) who is exclusively empowered
to adjudicate such matters. The order dated
23.06.2022 passed by the Collector, District
Jaunpur, without jurisdiction, declaring the
lease deed void, is thus vitiated in law and liable
to be quashed.

Collector cannot assume powers of SDO unless
such action is justified with valid reasons under
Section 19 of the Code. Rule 103 does not
confer concurrent jurisdiction on the Collector.

Legal Principle:

Where a statute specifically designates an
authority to decide a matter, higher authorities
cannot usurp such jurisdiction unless expressly
empowered.

Administrative
practicality
cannot
override
statutory mandate.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 9 ILRA 858
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 21618 of 2022

Smt. Meeru Seth ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, Sri Bal Krishna Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Held
-
Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
- Rule 103 - Transfer of land belonging to
Scheduled Caste persons to a member of the
non-SC category without prior permission of the
Collector is void under Section 104 read with
Section 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
However, under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue
Code Rules, 2016, it is the Sub-Divisional
Officer (SDO) who is exclusively empowered
to adjudicate such matters. The order dated
23.06.2022 passed by the Collector, District
Jaunpur, without jurisdiction, declaring the
lease deed void, is thus vitiated in law and liable
to be quashed.

Collector cannot assume powers of SDO unless
such action is justified with valid reasons under
Section 19 of the Code. Rule 103 does not
confer concurrent jurisdiction on the Collector.

Legal Principle:

Where a statute specifically designates an
authority to decide a matter, higher authorities
cannot usurp such jurisdiction unless expressly
empowered.

Administrative
practicality
cannot
override
statutory mandate.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Statutory interpretation of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Sections 4(8), 13(3), 19, 98, 104,
105, 210

2. U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rules 102,
103

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

(1) Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Dhananjai Singh, learned Standing counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, 2
and 8 along with Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for Gaon Sabha who has
been especially called upon by the Court
for assisting the matter related to the
complex question of law raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner.

(2) The present petition has been
instituted for challenging the order dated
23.06.2022 passed by respondent no. 2
under the proceedings initiated under
Section 104 and 105 of U.P. Revenue
Code,
2006.
While
adjudicating
the
proceedings instituted by an alien person
one Mr. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal who has
been arrayed as respondent no. 3 in the
instant petition, who is having a role as an
informant before the respondent no. 2 for
transfer
which
has
been
made
by
respondent no. 4 to 7 in favour of the
petitioner, for treating it being void in
terms of Section 104 and 105 of the U.P.
Revenue Code of 2006, making it clear that
the petitioner being purchaser of plot no. 4,
5-m,
6
and
7
situated
at
Gram
BusanpurTehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur
by way of lease deed instituted on
19.12.2018 executed by respondent no. 4 to
7 and as such he had never been a party
9 All. Smt. Meeru Seth Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
859
under
the
proceedings
initiated
by
respondent no. 2 under Section 104 and
105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

(3)

During
pendency
of
the
proceedings in shape of case no. 2264 of
2021
(computerized
case
no.
D2021143600002264)
(Santosh
Kumar
Jaiswal Vs. Meenu Seth and others) a
report has been called for and the same was
submitted
by
Sub-Divisional
Officer,
Tehsil-Kerakat, District Jaunpur, on dated
30.07.2021 which was in supplement and
addition to the report submitted by
Assistant Collector on dated 28.06.2021,
wherein it is crystal clearly mentioned that
the name of respondent no. 4 to 7 has been
entered in the revenue records as a
Bhumidhar having transferable rights under
Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, only on 6.7.2020 i.e. after the
commencement of lease deed executed by
respondent no. 4 to 7 in favour of the
petitioner.

(4) While arriving over the conclusion
drawn by the respondent no. 2, the vital
fact which is also mentioned that the
prerequisite condition for transferring the
land pertaining to the person belonging to
Scheduled Caste community to a person
belonging
to
non-Scheduled
caste
community is the permission granted by the
Collector which has not been obtained by
the petitioner. Several other factual and
technical grounds have been mentioned and
discussed with the rival submissions
submitted by the respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and
7 during adjudication of case no. 2264 of
2021 and ultimately the same was decided
with the specific finding recorded in the
concluding para of the order dated
23.06.2022 which impugned the present
petition is quoted herein below:

"अतः उपरोक्त स्ववेचना के आधार पर मैं इस स्नष्कषश
पर पहुँचता ह ँ स्क आवेदक द्वारा प्रथतुत आवेदन पत्र स्दनांक 1-22020 थवीकार स्कया जाता है, तिा िाटा संख्या
165/0.073हे० व 166/0.077हे० स्थित ग्राम रसडा व िाटा
संख्या 4/0.024हे० 5 स्म०/0.020हे० व 6/0.040हे० तिा
7/0.057हे० स्थित ग्राम स्वर्ुनपुर परिना व तहसील केराकत
जनपद जौनपुर की िूस्म का लीज ग्रस्हता मीनू सेठ पत्नी प्रिाकर
वमाश मोहजला मेहदी तला पो० केराकत तहसील केराकत स्जला
जौनपुर जो स्पछडी जास्त की है, के पक्ष में स्बना कलेक्टर की
अनुमस्त स्लये स्कया िया लीजडीड स्दनांक 19-12-2018
उ०प्र०रा०सं० 2006 की धारा 104 से बास्धत होने के कारण
र्ून्य है, स्जसे उ०प्र०रा०सं० 2006 की धारा 105 के अन्तिशत
राज्य सरकार में स्नस्हत स्कया जाता है, तिा आराजी स्नजाई पर
स्लस्खत खातेदारों का नाम स्नरथत करते हुए आराजी स्नजाई राज्य
सरकार के खाते में अंस्कत की जाती है। आदेर् के अनुपालन हेतु
आदेर् की प्रस्त तहसीलदार केराकत जौनपुर को प्रेस्षत स्कया जाय।
बाद आवश्यक कायशवाही पत्रावली दास्खल दफ्तर हो।"

(5) By bare perusal of the above
mentioned para of the impugned order
which clearly shows that the transfer made
by respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in shape of
lease deed in favour of the petitioner has
been declared void on the precise ground
that no permission has ever been sought by
the respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 from the
Collector before executing the transfer deed
in favour of the petitioner.

(6)

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner challenged the order dated
23.06.2022 under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India on several other
grounds inter alia that the proceedings
initiated under Section 104 and 105 by
the
respondent
no.
2
is
without
jurisdiction and as such the respondent
no. 2 was not competent in pursuance to
the statutory provisions contained under
Section 104, 105 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, read with Rule 103 of U.P.Revenue
Code Rules, 2016.
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(7) While examining the arguments as
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is necessary to quote the
Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 along with Rule 103 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 as under:

"Section
104.
Transfer
in
contravention of this Code to be void.-
Every Lease or transfer of interest in any
holding or part thereof made by a
bhumidhar or any asami in contravention
of the provisions of this Code shall be void.

Section 105. Consequences of
transfer by Bhumidhar in contravention
of the Code.-(1) Where transfer of interest
in any holding or part made by a
Bhumidhar is void under Section 104, the
following consequences shall, with effect
from the date of such transfer, ensure,
namely:

(a) the subject-matter of such
transfer shall vest in the State Government
free from all encumbrances;

(b) the tree, crops, wells and
other improvements, existing on such
holding or part shall vest in the State
Government free from all encumbrances;

(c) the interests of the transferor
and the transferee in the properties
specified in Clauses (a) and (b) shall stand
extinguished;

(d) the extinction of interest of the
transferor under Clause (c) shall operate to
extinguish the interest of any asami holding
under him.

[(e) the provisions of this section
shall no apply to any lease made under
Section 94.]

(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 of such land and other property,
and to direct that any person occupying
such land or property be evicted therefrom,
and for that purpose, the Collector may use
or cause to be used such force as may be
necessary and the provisions of Section 59
mutatis mutandis shall apply to such
property.

Rule
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
sub-rule(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
9 All. Smt. Meeru Seth Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
861
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) Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned
counsel for petitioner sought the attention
of the Court over the procedural part of the
Section 104 and 105 which is clearly
demonstrated under Rule 103 wherein, it is
the Sub-Divisional Officer who will receive
the report submitted by concerned Lekhpal
or on information received otherwise will
call upon the parties to the transfer, to show
cause why action under Section 104 read
with Section 105 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, should not be taken in respect of the
land in question, meaning thereby if in any
case transfer of any land has to be declared
as void the competent authority for
adjudication of the same shall be the SubDivisional Officer only. Moreover, for
direction to correct the revenue records in
accordance with the adjudication made by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, the SubDivisional Officer will direct that the
revenue records
should be corrected
accordingly.

(9) The instant matter which has been
pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the entire adjudication
initiated over the application submitted by
respondent no. 3 has been initiated by the
respondent
no.
2
who
is
the
Collector/District
Magistrate,
District
Jaunpur, and as such the proceedings
initiated by the respondent no. 2 is without
jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set
aside.

(10) Per contra, Sri Dhananjai Singh,
learned Standing counsel and Sri Pankaj
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for Gaon
Sabha vehemently opposed the prayer as
made in the petition as well as rebutted the
stand taken up by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the ground that Section 104
and 105 are the provisions contained in the
U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006,
wherein
outcome of the same that there shall be no
appeal lies and as such it was always the
prerogative of the immediate superior
authority
to
exercise
the
power
so
contained and vested with the subordinate
authority where no appeal lies. And as such
the action in shape of initiation of
proceedings under Section 104 and 105 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, carried out by
respondent no. 2 is well under its own
jurisdiction and the same is justified and no
writ petition is maintainable for challenging
the order passed by the Collector under
Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. More so, both the learned
counsels
for
the
respondents
argued
vehemently that the writ petition is not
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintainable on the ground of alternative
remedy available before the petitioner
under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

(11) Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned
Standing counsel also submitted that by
mere reading of the essence of Section 104
and 105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, read
with Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules
of 2016, it is practically not feasible that
the report or the case shall be submitted by
the Collector and the same shall be
adjudicated by the Sub-Divisional Officer
who is the subordinate authority to the
Collector and thereafter if any adjudication
has been made by the Sub-Divisional
Officer
the
execution
part
of
the
order/determination drawn by the SubDivisional officer, the same has to be
executed by the Collector is also not
feasible practically. For substantiating his
arguments, Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned
Standing counsel referred the sub-rule (6)
of Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 wherein it is mentioned that 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.

(12) For supporting the stand taken up
by learned Standing counsel, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Gupta further added the definition
clause mentioned under sub-section (8) of
Section 4 of the U.P. Revenue Code of
2006 wherein Collector means an officer
appointed as such by the State Government
under sub-section (1) of Section 12 and
shall include- (a) an Additional Collector
appointed by the State Government under
sub-section (2) of the said Section; and (b)
an Assistant Collector of the first class
empowered by the State Government by
notification to discharge all or any of the
functions of a Collector under this Code;
along with Section 13(3) which deals that
the officers referred to in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall exercise all the powers
and discharge all the duties conferred and
imposed upon them by or under this Code
or any other law for the time being in force,
subject to the control of the Collector.

(13) Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned
counsel for Gaon Sabha demonstrated that
it is the Collector who is all the time
empowered
to
exercise
the
powers
conferred with the Assistant Collector first
class and the same has been exercised in
the instant matter by the Collector, District
Jaunpur while passing the order which
impugned the present petition and as such
the entire action carried out by respondent
no. 2 is well under the jurisdiction defined
and guarded by Section 4(8) along with
Section 13(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code of
2006.

(14) For elaborating the arguments,
Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel
for Gaon Sabha sought the attention of the
Court over Section 19 and 215 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 which is quoted
herein below:

"Section 19. Other power of
Revenue Officers.-(1) When any power is
exercisable or any duty is dischargeable by
any officer or authority under this Code,
such power or duty may be exercised or
discharged by any superior officer or
authority as well.

(2)
The
revenue
officers
appointed under this Code shall, subject to
the control of the State Government,
exercise such other powers and discharge
9 All. Smt. Meeru Seth Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
863
such other duties as the State Government
may, by any general or special order,
direct.

Section 215. Orders not to be
invalid on account of irregularity in
procedure.- No order passed by a revenue
officer shall be reversed or altered in
appeal or revision on account merely of
any error, omission or irregularity in the
summons, notice, proclamation, warrant or
order or other proceedings before or
during any inquiry or other proceedings
under this Code, unless such error,
omission or irregularity has in fact
occasioned a failure of justice."

By way of referring the above
mentioned sections, Sri Pankaj Kumar
Gupta, justified the order passed by
Collector while exercising the power vest
with the Sub-Divisional Officer defined
under Rule 102 of U.P. Revenue Code,
Rules 2016 which is quoted herein below:

"Rule 102. Grant of permission
by Sub-Divisional Officer (Sections 101
and 102).-(1) On receipt of an application
under rule 100 or rule 101, the SubDivisional Officer shall issue notice to the
bhumidhar
or
the
Gram
Panchayat
concerned
to
show
cause
why
the
permission for exchange should not be
granted.

(2) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall also cause to be calculated the rental
value of the land given or received in
exchange and may also hear the lessees,
mortgagees or other holders of the
encumbrances, if any.

(3) If after making necessary
inquiries, the Sub Divisional Officer is
satisfied that the parties are agreeable to
such exchange and the required terms and
conditions are fulfilled, he shall grant the
requisite permission and shall direct the
record
of
rights
to
be
corrected
accordingly.

(4) If the application is in respect
of the land referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) and if it is reserved for planned
use or is land in which bhumidhari rights
do not accrue and the Sub-Divisional
Officer is satisfied that the permission for
exchange is in the interest of the applicant
and is also in the public interest, he may
refer the matter to the State Government
for appropriate order and if the permission
is granted by the State Government, the
Sub Divisional Officer shall direct the
Records of Rights (Khatauni) to be
corrected accordingly."

It is the argument raised by
learned counsel for Gaon Sabha that the
sole ground for institution of the present
petition is being defeated under Section 19
of the Code of 2006 which enables the
superior authority to exercise the power
conferred with the subordinate authority
and as such if the application preferred by
the petitioner has been denied while
exercising the power under Rule 102, 103
of Rules of 2016, the same cannot be
assailed on the ground of the procedural
error which is barred by Section 215 of the
Code of 2006.

(15) Learned Standing counsel also
supported the order dated 23.06.2022 on
the issue that respondent no. 2 decided the
issue which is related to Section 98 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein it is
only the Collector who is empowered to
pass specific order, if any permission has
been sought by the person belonging to
Scheduled Caste community for seeking
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission to transfer the land over which
his rights have been incurred as Bhumidhar
with transferable rights. In the instant
matter there was no as such permission
sought by the respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7
to transfer their land in favour of the
petitioner and as such in absence of any
proper
permission
accorded
by
the
respondent no.2 the transfer made by
respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 has been held
as void under Section 104 and 105 of the
U.P. Revenue Code of 2006.

(16)

After
having
the
rival
submissions extended by learned counsel
for the parties, certain questions have been
determined for concluding the controversy
as raised through the instant petition which
is less in fact and more in legal aspects and
the same are as under:

(i)
whether
Collector
is
empowered to adjudicate the proceedings
under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 specifically when there is
attraction of Section 98 of the U.P.
Revenue Code of 2006?

(ii) if any order is passed without
jurisdiction while declaring the transfer as
void under Section 104/105 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 whether the same
shall be subject to final adjudication under
Section 210 of Code of 2006?

(iii) attraction of Section 4(8),
Section 13(3) of U.P. Revenue Code of
2006 in reference to Rule 103 of U.P.
Revenue Code Rules 2016 and the impact
thereof?

(17) However, with regard to
answering the first question framed above
shall be dependent upon the entire
proceedings whatsoever has been initiated
in shape of case no. 2264 of 2021 and the
fate of the instant petition but the same is
necessary
to
be
answered
at
first.
Considering the argument as raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner, the
statutory provision as defined under Rule
103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016,
there is hardly any ambiguity which has
been mentioned under Rule 103(3) of the
same rules, it is the Sub-Divisional Officer
who is empowered to declare the transfer in
question as void, if it is, under Section 104
and as such the submission made by
learned Standing counsel as well as Sri
Pankaj Kumar Gupta by way of taking
reliance to the Section 4(8) as well as
Section 13(3) is not sustainable, since the
essence of the power vested with the
Collector can be delegated or transferred or
notified to the Assistant Collector, SubDivisional Officer by special notification
issued by the State, but under the control of
the Collector does not prevail Collector to
exercise the power as codified under the
Statute specifically for the Sub-Divisional
Officer and as such the provisions cannot
be read as a reversible theory which was
tried to be demonstrated by learned
Standing counsel. It is only the SubDivisional
Officer
who
has
been
specifically mentioned under the Rule
103(3) U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for
dealing with the provisions contained under
Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue
Code of 2006.

(18) The second issue as framed
above with regard to maintainability of the
outcome of the order from the proceedings
of Section 104 and 105 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Code of 2006 has expressly
attained the finality after the proceedings
under Section 210 since the order, if not
passed by the authority who is having the
jurisdiction the same can be apprised by
9 All. Smt. Meeru Seth Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
865
way of filing revision before the authority
as defined under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Code of 2006. In the instant
matter the order which impugned the
present petition has been challenged,
whereupon the interim protection has been
granted by this Court and after exchange of
pleadings and after the passage of time,
plea and the ground taken up by learned
Standing
counsel
with
regard
to
maintainability of the instant petition on the
ground of alternative remedy will now be
adversely affecting the legitimate right of
the petitioner which has been come up
before this Court for specific consideration
over the competency of the authority
adjudicated upon while dealing with the
Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue
Code of 2006 and as such the instant
petition has to be adjudicated only on the
test of competency as well as on the ground
of the legal provisions which enable the
authority to act upon while considering the
nature of transfer case under Section 104
and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code of 2006.

(19) The third question framed
hereinabove is by and large answered in the
first and second question as framed and the
same need not to be dealt separately since it
is
crystal
clear
with
concurrent
demonstration of the legal issue by learned
counsel appearing for the rival parties
which precisely made it clear that it is the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
who
is
the
competent authority to adjudicate any
proceedings initiated in respect to Section
104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
however the arguments extended by Sri
Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
Gaon Sabha for consideration of Section 19
and 215 of Code of 2006 are concerned, it
is to clarify that the power vest with the
higher authority for exercising the duties as
well as power defined under the Code of
2006 conferred with the subordinate
authority is in special circumstances and
the same cannot be exercised in a normal
and usual manner, if that be so, the reasons
for exercising the powers attracting Section
19 of Code of 2006 must be with plausible
and satisfactory reasons recorded by the
superior authority while exercising the
powers of the subordinate authority. The
pious intention of the legislature at the time
of framing the Section 19 in U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 which is by and large a special
and extraordinary powers conferred with
the superior authority was not available in
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was only to
ensure the dispensation of justice not for
using the same in a normal and usual
manner and as such while exercising the
power under Section 19 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, it is the the essential
ingredient of the order passed by superior
authority
by
way
of
recording
the
reasonings that under which circumstances,
the power of Section 19 has been exercised
by the superior authority once the same
vest with the subordinate authority.

(20) In respect to the submission
made by learned Standing counsel that with
regard to feasibility of the practicality
involved
in
the
manner
where
the
adjudication will be made by the SubDivisional Officer and the same shall be
executed by the Collector, it is to clarify
that
Sub-Divisional
Officer
is
the
adjudicating authority in pursuance to
Section 104, 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code
of 2006 wherein the procedure has been
defined under Rule 103 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules of 2016. It is not the
Collector who will execute the orders or the
adjudication
made
by
Sub-Divisional
Officer rather the transfer of property
which has been declared as void by the
Sub-Divisional Officer shall be vest with
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the State. There is hardly any doubt that it
is the Collector who is the designated
officer in the District as State and all the
performance
commenced
under
the
category and nomenclature of the State
empowered
the
District
Magistrate/Collector to act accordingly and
as such if the power and the property or any
embodied adjudication carry the word State
that directly demonstrate in the individual
manner is the Collector inside the District.
Once the property which has been declared
by the Sub-Divisional Officer as void shall
be vested with the State it is only the
Collector who will take the possession of
the same as under the capacity of the State
itself and the same shall be further handed
over in favour of the Gaon Sabha by the
State that is by the Collector himself and as
such the ground taken up by learned
Standing counsel is hereby clarified that it
is not the execution it is only the vesting
the power of State into the Collector for
receiving the property which has been
declared during transfer as void and the
same has been provided under Rule 103(6)
of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules of 2016.

(21) In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances, and the substantial
arguments extended by all the three learned
Advocates which provided the space to the
Court and sufficient assistance to arrive
over the conclusion which is as under:

(i) order dated 23.06.2022 is
hereby
set
aside
being
passed
and
adjudicated contrary to the proceedings
initiated under Section 104/105 of U.P.
Revenue Code 2006 by the respondent no.
2 being not competent under the provisions
mentioned under the Code of 2006 and the
impact and effect of the adjudication drawn
by respondent no. 2 shall also have no
bearing for any purpose whatsoever.

(22)

Before
parting
with
the
conclusion
drawn
by
this
Court,
I
personally express my gratitude to Sri
Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel who appears on behalf of
Gaon Sabha but in the instant matter he has
been especially called for assistance to the
Court being the expert in the matters
pertaining to revenue and civil jurisdiction
at the same time Sri Dhananjai Singh,
learned Standing counsel also extended his
able assistance for supporting the stand
taken up by the State authorities which was
helpful for ultimately deciding the instant
petition.

(23) Writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 866
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 21891 of 2023

Sarita Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Saroj Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Pravesh Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Raj Karan Yadav, Sri Vidya Dhar
Yadav, Sri Yadvendra Kumar Yadav, Sri
C.B. Yadav (Sr. Adv.), Sri Anand Upadhyay

Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 -
Section
12-C
-
U.P.
Panchayat
Raj
(Election of Members, Pradhans and UpPradhans), Rules, 1994 - Rules 96, 106,