# Smt. Savita v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 617
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29878 of 2010
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-savita-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46663
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 142, 143, 157-A
& 331-A - Land purchased from persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes - No permission
u/s 157A was taken - Nature of land -
Determination thereof, whether it is abadi land
or agricultural land - Requirement of referring
matter for a decision as to whether the land
was agricultural or it was abadi - No reference
was made - Consequence - Held, the Court
dealing with the case was duty bound to refer
the matter under Section 331A of the Act of
1950 for framing an issue as to whether the
land was of an agricultural nature or not and
thereafter an adjudication was to be made by
the Assistant Collector Incharge as to what
exactly was the nature of the land - High Court
set aside the impugned order, which declared
the sale-deed null and void and vested the
property in State. (Para 4 and 5)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

11 All. Smt. Savita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
617

62. The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A617
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 29878 of 2010

Smt. Savita ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Sri P.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Kumar

A. Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 142, 143, 157-A
& 331-A - Land purchased from persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes - No permission
u/s 157A was taken - Nature of land -
Determination thereof, whether it is abadi land
or agricultural land - Requirement of referring
matter for a decision as to whether the land
was agricultural or it was abadi - No reference
was made - Consequence - Held, the Court
dealing with the case was duty bound to refer
the matter under Section 331A of the Act of
1950 for framing an issue as to whether the
land was of an agricultural nature or not and
thereafter an adjudication was to be made by
the Assistant Collector Incharge as to what
exactly was the nature of the land - High Court
set aside the impugned order, which declared
the sale-deed null and void and vested the
property in State. (Para 4 and 5)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Haroon Ahmad & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012
(4) ADJ 179
2. Lalita Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2017 LawSuit(All)
2749.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. The petitioner purchased 275 Sq. Metres
of land in Plot No.369 from Jaipal, Harpal and
Bhopal sons of Late Sri Jahariya by a sale-deed
dated 19.07.2008. Thereafter a notice was issued
to the petitioner asking her to explain as to why
the sale-deed be not considered null and void
and her property be vested in the State as the
property was purchased by the petitioner from
persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and no
permission under Section 157A of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1950")
was taken. By the order dated 23.05.2009, the
sale-deed of the Plot No.369 Area 275.80 Sq.
Metres was declared null and void and the
property was vested in the State. Petitioner
thereafter filed a Revision and when the
Revision was also dismissed, the instant writ
petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
made the following submissions:-

(i) Petitioner did not receive any notice
before the initiation of the case by which the
land was to be vested in the State under Sections
166/167 of the Act of 1950.

(ii) Petitioner has submitted that before
the Courts below, she had stated that the Plot
when was purchased, was in the shape of abadi
and that the stamp duty which was levied on the
sale-deed, was also such as was leviable on a
property of commercial nature.

(iii) It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that before the
Revisional Court, it was vehemently argued that
as per the provisions of Section 331A of the Act
of 1950, the question as to whether the property
was agricultural or abadi had to be considered
by the Assistant Collector and only thereafter it
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
could be ascertained as to whether the land was
of an agricultural nature or it was an abadi.

(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that if the land in question was
abadi then the provisions of Section 157A of the
Act of 1950 would not apply.

(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted
that
when
a
bhumidar
with
transferable rights has been given the right to
use the land in the manner as is proper under
Section 142 of the Act of 1950 then it could not
be said that when there was no declaration under
Section 143 of the Act of 1950, the land had
continued to be an agricultural land, despite the
fact that it was being used as Abadi.

(vi) It has further been submitted that
the method of conversion of a land from
agricultural to abadi was not confined only to
the provisions of Section 143 of the Act of 1950.
He submits that if a controversy arose in any
proceeding before a Court that whether the land
was agricultural or it was abadi and a definite
case was made out that there was a dispute with
regard to the land being abadi or agricultural
then the only course open to the Court was to
refer the matter under Section 331A of the Act
of 1950 to the Assistant Collector In-charge of
the Sub-Division for a decision as to whether the
land was agricultural or it was abadi.

(vii) In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgements of this Court passed in Haroon
Ahmad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in 2012 (4) ADJ 179 and Lalita
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in
2017 LawSuit(All) 2749.

(viii)
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, therefore, submits that in the absence
of any reference being made to the Assistant
Collector In-charge of the Sub-Division under
Section 331A of the Act of 1950, the Courts
below erred in holding that the land was an
agricultural one. Under such circumstances, he
submits that the orders impugned cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and are liable to be
set aside.

3. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in
reply submitted that as no declaration with
regard to the fact that the land was abadi was
made under Section 143 of the Act of 1950 then
definitely the land had to be treated as
agricultural and when there was no permission
taken by the purchasers as also by the sellers, the
sale-deed had to be declared void and the land
had to be vested in the State.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for
the State-Respondents and also after going
through the judgements cited above, this Court
is of the view that when during any proceeding a
controversy arises as to whether a particular land
is a land which is of agricultural nature as is
defined under Section 3(14) of the Act of 1950
or whether it was an abadi and when there was
no declaration under Section 143 of the Act of
1950 then the Court dealing with the case was
duty bound to refer the matter under Section
331A of the Act of 1950 for framing an issue as
to whether the land was of an agricultural nature
or not and thereafter an adjudication was to be
made by the Assistant Collector In-charge as to
what exactly was the nature of the land. In the
absence of any reference by the relevant
authority to the Assistant Collector and in the
absence of any decision by the Assistant
Collector, this Court is of the view that the
orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law and are liable to be set aside.

5. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed. The orders dated 11.09.2009 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division,
Meerut in Revision No.62/2008-09, Smt. Savita
11 All. Smt. Sushma Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
619
Vs. State of U.P. and Others and the order dated
23.05.2009 passed by Additional Collector
(Administration), Meerut in Case No.8, under
Sections 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 are set
aside.
----------
(2021)11ILR A619
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI (THAKUR), J.

Writ C No. 45366 of 2017
connected alongwith
Writ C No. 50958 of 2017

Smt. Sushma Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava,
Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, Sri Ashok
Khare

A. Municipal Law - Executive decision - Scope
of
Judicial
review
-Interference,
when
warranted - Held, it is settled principle that
within the limited scope of the judicial review,
the decision of the Executives cannot be
overturned on the basis of that being an
incorrect decision - The Court will be slow to
interfere
in
such
matters
relating
to
administrative functions unless decision is
tainted by any vulnerability like illegality,
irrationality and procedural impropriety -
Satisfaction of the authority can be interfered
with only if the satisfaction recorded is
demonstratively
perverse
based
on
no
evidence, misreading of evidence or which a
reasonable man could not form or that the
person
concerned
was
not
given
due
opportunity resulting in prejudice. (Para 14 and
15)
B. Municipal Law - Constitution of India -
Article 243-Q and 243-X - UP Municipalities
Act, 1916 - S. 3(2) - GO dated 10.11.2014 -
Upgradation of the Nagar Panchayat to Nagar
Palika
Parishad
-
Relevant
criteria
-
Application - The percentage of employment in
non-agricultural activities and the economic
importance are also the important factors
which have to be taken into consideration by
the
Governor
for
upgradation
of
the
transitional area to an urban area - Held, from
the material on record and even from the stand
of the petitioners herein, it cannot be said that
the Nagar Panchayat Bharwari which was a
transitional
area
had
not
seen
changes/increase in the population, revenue
generation,
employment
opportunities
and
economic activities during the course of time.
(Para 17)
Writ petitions dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. Vs Sanjeev @ Bittoo;
(2005) 5 SCC 181

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Pramod
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Rama Shanker Mishra
learned Advocates for the petitioners, Sri
Manish Goel learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Sri A.K. Goel learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava
learned Advocate for the Nagar Palika Parishad
and perused the record.

2. By means of the abovenoted writ
petitions, the petitioners seek for quashing of the
notification dated 26.10.2016 issued under
Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities
Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,