RAJNATH MISRA Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I rejected this writ petition in limine with the observations that the reasons for my rejection of the writ petition will follow. The reasons are hereunder : The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India challenging the order of the Addl District Judge, Varanasi, dated 31-5-1990 granting permission to respondeat no. 2 for mortgaging the agricultural land in favour of respondent no. 4 for getting loan for the welfare project which respondent no. 2 has to carry on. The Addl. District Judge has granted the permission and has rejected the objection of the petitioner. Sri S. K. Varma, the learned counsel for the petitoner has made following submissions before me for challenging the aforesaid order :- (1) That the allotment of agricultural land in favour of respondent no. 2 by the Gaon Sabha was completely in violation of provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms act, as such since the allotment itself was invalid, the application for permission of transfer of the land in favour of respondent no. 4 under section 5-A of the societies Registration act was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected.

(2.) THAT one of the terms of the lease was that if within two years the proposed constructions for which lease is granted are not started then the lease will stand cancelled and the lease will revert back to the Gaon Sabha. The contention of Sri Verma is that within two years, the respondent no. 2 failed to start the constructions and the land reverted back to the Gaon Sabha. For this reason also, it is contended that since the land did not belong to respondent no. 2, there was absolutely no justification for the Addl. District Judge to have granted the permission to respondent no. 2 for mortgaging the land in favour of respondent no. 4. While elucidating the submission, it was contended that the finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge that the constructions were started within two years, was patently perverse as it was based on inadmissible evidence and also the finding was contrary to the evidence on record.

(3.) THAT under the societies Registration Act, the 'court' means only the District Judge and as such the Addl. District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the objection raised by the petitioner. In this connection it was also submitted that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question that land continued to belong to the Society.