MAHENDRA LAL JAINI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.10.1983 (copy Annexure -10 to the writ petition), passed by Addl. District Judge (Special Judge, Anti Corruption), Dehradun, whereby said court has allowed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1967. The impugned order appears to have been passed under Section 17/18 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners have also challenged vires of U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) (Re -enactment and Validation) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 12 of 1972).

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the papers on record.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, it has been stated that the Maharaja of Nahan (Sirmour Estate) had no authority to execute an agreement in favour of anyone, and the same is void -ab -initio. Suit No. 52 of 1957, which was filed after execution of said lease deed by the Maharaja in favour of petitioner Mahendra Lal Jaini and Virendra Goyal, in which Virendra Goyal was adjudged Benamidar, was a collusive decree as the answering respondents of this writ petition were not parties to said suit. The agreement appears to have been executed by the Maharaja to deprive the State of its rights over the land in question. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the lease / sale deed executed by the Maharaja in favour of original petitioner is hit by Section 8 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. No right whatsoever heritable or otherwise stood transferred to the petitioner by the alleged deeds executed by the Maharaja. It is pleaded that the document said to have been executed on 14.06.1952, was actually registered on 06.08.1952, which shows that the said document was a ante dated document. It is further pleaded that the mutation application could not have been moved before registration of the aforesaid document as alleged by the petitioners. It is stated in the counter affidavit that all properties including the land in question vested in Gaon Sabha by virtue of Section 6 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner could not have been granted permission to convert forest land into an agricultural land in the manner pleaded by him, nor such permission was given to him. It is specifically stated that land in question is in the possession of the State. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that petitioners, alleged co -lessee Virendra Goyal when made attempt to fell trees in the land in question, criminal proceedings were drawn against him and he was convicted under Section 26 of the Forest Act, 1972. Thereafter, he filed criminal appeal No. 81 of 1960, and the same too was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 25.07.1962. It is also stated that when the writ petition was filed by the petitioner before Allahabad High Court and obtained interim order, the petitioner was not in possession of the land in question. Defending the vires of the impugned U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) (Re -enactment and Validation) Act, 1972 (Act No. 12 of 1972), it is pleaded that the same is passed with the due legislative competence, and it is stated that validity of said Act is not affected due to the striking down of the U.P. Act No. 15 of 1952. The inspection report of the Sub Divisional Officer, who was an I.A.S. officer, after spot inspection on 09.07.1952 is filed as Annexure -6 to the counter affidavit, and report dated 07.03.1967 of the Forest Settlement Officer, after his inspection, is also filed as Annexure -7 to the counter affidavit.