AJAY PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for parties. Petitioner purchased some agricultural land through sale -deed dated 4.9.2000. Proceedings were initiated against him under section 166/167/168 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the form of Case No. 36 of 2001, State v. Ajay Pal on the ground that the sale -deed through which he had purchased the agricultural land was hit by section 168 -A of the Act, which prohibited transfer of fragment. The matter was decided ex parte against the petitioner on 26.5.2001. The decision was ex parte hence petitioner filed restoration application on 13.6.2001 i.e. within three weeks. Restoration application was rejected by A.D.M. (Administration), Bulandshahar on 17.12.2005. Against the said order and the order dated 26.5.2001 petitioner filed two revisions being Revisions No. 17 & 18, both of 2005 -06. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut through judgment and order dated 19.9.2006 dismissed both the revisions hence this writ petition.

(2.) IN the judgment of the Revisional Court it is mentioned that for getting the benefit of deletion of section 168 -A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004, petitioner had deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 600/ - on 28.9.2005 for validation of the deed. The Trial Court did not say single word about it. The Revisional Court held that property had already vested in the State Government through order dated 26.5.2001, hence there was no question of validation of transfer.

(3.) SECTION 11 termed as Special Provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004) which received the assent of the Governor on 20.8.2004 and published in the U.P. Gazette dated 23.8.2004 is quoted below: