# Smt. Sumita Devi v. Sushila Devi and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 177
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-02-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14489 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sumita-devi-v-sushila-devi-and-others-41829
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act-Section-168-APurchase of grove land-through Regd.
sale deed-challenged by private personheld-except Gaon Sabha or the Stateprivate individual has no locus standi and
in earlier civil suit challenging same sale
transaction-got finality by dismissal-on
same very ground-more over gave land is
not
within
meaning
of
agricultural
holding-considering amendment 2004provision
of
Section
168-A
itself
repeated-after depositing certain amount
sale transaction can be validated-which
also
expired-hence
with
liberal
interpretation in favor of vendor and
vendee-order impugned declaring sale
deed void hit by Section 168-A-Quashed.

Held: Para 7

Moreover provisions of Section 168-A
were quite harsh. The Section has also
been deleted. U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004
which deleted section 168-A made the
previous transactions hit by the said
section voidable (in stead of void) and
curable (capable of being validated) on
payment of some nominal fees within a
particular period which has now expired
(Section 11). Accordingly, for these two
reasons the section shall be interpreted
(for
the
sake
of
past
transactions)
liberally, in favour of vendor and vendee.

## Text

1 All] Smt. Sumita Devi V. Sushila Devi and others
177
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14489 of 2008

Smt. Sumitra Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sushila Devi and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
B.N. Chaturvedi,
Smt. C.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act-Section-168-APurchase of grove land-through Regd.
sale deed-challenged by private personheld-except Gaon Sabha or the Stateprivate individual has no locus standi and
in earlier civil suit challenging same sale
transaction-got finality by dismissal-on
same very ground-more over gave land is
not
within
meaning
of
agricultural
holding-considering amendment 2004provision
of
Section
168-A
itself
repeated-after depositing certain amount
sale transaction can be validated-which
also
expired-hence
with
liberal
interpretation in favor of vendor and
vendee-order impugned declaring sale
deed void hit by Section 168-A-Quashed.

Held: Para 7

Moreover provisions of Section 168-A
were quite harsh. The Section has also
been deleted. U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004
which deleted section 168-A made the
previous transactions hit by the said
section voidable (in stead of void) and
curable (capable of being validated) on
payment of some nominal fees within a
particular period which has now expired
(Section 11). Accordingly, for these two
reasons the section shall be interpreted
(for
the
sake
of
past
transactions)
liberally, in favour of vendor and vendee.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. List revised. No one has appeared
for the respondents. Heard learned counsel
for the petitioner.

2. Petitioner through registered sale
deed dated 25.9.1984 purchased land admeasuring 520 Square Meter out of Plot
No. 159 Ka total area 0.73 acres from
respondent No. 5 - Sheri Pal. Earlier
respondent Nos. 5 to 10 had purchased
total Plot No. 159 Ka from its previous
bhumidhar Sushila Devi, repondent no. 1
on 27.02.1975. The plot is grove and
entered as such in revenue records. Ram
Nath,
respondent
No.2
and
others
purchased plot no. 159 Kha area 0.09 acre
from Sushila Devi in 1985. They first
challenged the sale deed dated 25.9.1994
along with two other similar sale deeds
through a civil suit only on the ground that
the deeds were in violation of and hit by
Section
168-A
of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act (the said
Section has been repealed in 2004). The
said section prohibited sale of fragment of
agricultural land. The suit (Suit No. 621 of
1986) was dismissed on 26.02.1988 by 5th
Additional Munsif, Etah. Copy of the said
judgment is annexed as Annexure-I to the
writ petition. In the said judgement, it was
specifically held that in view of the fact
that the property in question was grove and
not situate in consolidated area, Section
168-A of the Act was not attracted.
Against the said judgment, Civil Appeal
No. 64 of 1988 was filed, which was
dismissed by 7th Additional District Judge,
Etah on 4.8.1990. Copy of the said
judgment is annexed as Annexure-II to the
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
writ petition. The appellate Court also held
that Section 168-A of the Act was not
attracted. It was further held that plaintiffs
had no right to challenge the sale deed on
the ground of violation of Section 168-A
and only Collector or Gram Sabha could
do that. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that against the said judgment and
decree, no second appeal was filed.

3. Strangely enough in spite of the
decision
of
civil
court
Ram
Nath
respondent No.2 filed case/suit under
Section
168-A
of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
before the Additional Collector, Etah. The
petitioner appeared in the said case and
filed the judgment of the civil court and
took the plea of res-judicata. However, the
Additional Collector, Etah even after
referring to civil courts' judgments, by his
order dated 25.2.1994 declared that the
sale deed dated 27.02.1975 through which
Sushila Devi had sold whole Plot No. 159
Ka to respondent nos. 5 to 10 was void and
hit by Section 168-A of the U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act. Consequently the sale deed by
respondent no. 5 to the petitioner dated
25.09.1984 and the other two sale deeds of
1984 were also held to be void. Against the
said judgment and order, revision was filed
being Revision No.123 of 1994 before
Additional Commissioner, Agra Division,
Agra, who dismissed the revision on
12.12.2007, hence this writ petition.

4. I fully agree with the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
after dismissal of the civil suit and appeal,
it was not permissible for Additional
Collector or the revisional authority / Court
to take a contrary view and it was an abuse
of process of Court by respondent no.2 to
approach them. Moreover as held by the
Appellate Court/ A.D.J. plea of sale deed
being hit by Section 168-A of the Act
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, could be raised only by the State or
Gaon sabha and respondent no.2 had
absolutely no locus standi to agitate the
matter. The sale deed was executed by
respondent no. 5 in favour of petitioner and
both of them were fully satisfied and the
Gaon Sabha or the State Government had
not challenged the same. In this scenario,
no other person had any authority to agitate
the matter.

5. The words 'consolidated area' have
not been defined either under U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act or U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
The definition of 'Consolidation area' was
irrelevant for the purposes of section 168A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The word
'Consolidation' has been defined under
Section 3(2) of U.P. C.H. Act as follows:-

[(2)
'Consolidation'
means
rearrangement of holdings in a unit amongst
several tenure-holders in such a way as to
make their respective holdings more
compact];

Explanation- For the purpose of this
clause, holding shall not include the
following:

(i) Land which was grove in
agricultural year immediately preceding
the year in which the notification under
Section 4 was issued:

(ii) to (vii) - not relevant.

6. Accordingly grove is not included
in the 'Consolidated area' which can only
mean rearranged chak.
1 All] Mohammad Salim Siddiqui V. State of U.P. and others
179

7. Moreover provisions of Section
168-A were quite harsh. The Section has
also been deleted. U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004
which deleted section 168-A made the
previous transactions hit by the said
section voidable (in stead of void) and
curable (capable of being validated) on
payment of some nominal fees within a
particular period which has now expired
(Section 11). Accordingly, for these two
reasons the section shall be interpreted (for
the sake of past transactions) liberally, in
favour of vendor and vendee.

8. Writ petition is therefore allowed.
Impugned orders are set aside.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17102 of 2007

Mohammad Salim Siddiqui ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Amit Srivastava
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Abhinav Upadhyay
C.S.C.

Constitution of India-Art.226- Practice
and
Procedure-Petitioner
for
same
incident-facing Criminal as well as
disciplinary proceeding for negligence
dereliction in duty-grass negligence by
driving heavy vehicle without having
license
dismissal
order
allowed
to
finalized as no revision or appeal filedafter acquittal in criminal proceeding it
can not be reviewed-view taken by
revisional authority held justified.

Held: Para 25

In this case, departmental enquiry was
not only concluded but the statutory
appeal and revision filed by petitioner
also stood rejected. Petitioner did not
challenge the same before any Court of
law and accepted it. It is only when in
criminal proceedings after few years he
was acquitted, then for the first time in
2004
he
approached
revisional
authority to review its order. Petitioner
did
not
point
out
any
error
or
irregularity
in
the
departmental
enquiry held against him. The only
submission is that since he has been
acquitted
in
the
criminal
case,
therefore order of punishment passed
in
departmental
enquiry
after
condoning delay should be set aside
even though there is no legal infirmity
in said proceeding. To my mind, the
departmental inquiry have attained
finality on the basis of independent
proceedings. In my view, on the basis
of acquittal in a criminal case where
the things were different as discussed
above, the authority was not justified
to review of the order of punishment
passed in departmental proceedings.
Revisional Authority has considered
these aspects in the impugned order
and I do not find any legal infirmity in
the approach of revisional authority as
also in its reasoning & conclusion.
Case law discussed:
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. And another (1999)3 SCC 679;
G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & others JT
2006(11) SC 36; 2006 (5) SCC 446; The
Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad
and Another vs. P. Kata Rao JT 2008(4) SC
577; Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager
(P.J.) vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia
& others JT 2005(8) SC 425; JT 2006(1) SC
444;.JT 2003 (5) SC 494; JT 2007 (2) SC
620;1997 (2) SCC 699; JT 1996 (8);JT 1997
(4) SC 541.