SHODAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector (Administration) Meerut and the order dated 26.4.2000 passed the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners are the Bhumidhars of plot No. 199 measuring area 0.506 hectares. The petitioners purchased the said plot through a registered sale-deed comprising half share of one Charan Singh, who was the sole Bhumidhar of the said plot. When the petitioners applied for mutation of their names in the Revenue Records, the Tehsildar made a complaint on 31.7.1999. Proceeding against the petitioners under Section 166 /167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the 'Act 1950') was initiated. The complaint was that the purchase made by the petitioners was hit by the provisions of Section 168-A (since repealed) of the Act, 1950. After notices were issued to the petitioners, they filed their objections and asserted that the said purchase was not hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 and there was no violation of the said proviso. However, it is stated that the Additional Collector (Administration), Meerut, the competent authority by the impugned order dated 23.12.1999 has held that the land, in question, was purchased by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 and, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioners in such land and has further held that the land, in question would, therefore, vest in the State Government.

(2.) I have heard Sri. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

(3.) On the other hand learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the sale of the plot could have been made only if Charan Singh was the Bhumidhar of the entire plot No. 199 and since Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 specifically proscripted the sale or transfer of fragmented portion of any holding, the sale in favour of the petitioners was in violation of the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950. The provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 reads as follows: