SITARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Guru Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Amit Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.

(2.) The present petition seeks to assail the order dtd. 19/7/2021 passed by the Respondent no. 3-Additional Collector (Administration), Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 433 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. D2020095500000433, Sitaram vs. State) whereby permission sought by the petitioner under Sec. 98(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20061 was turned down. The subsequent order dtd. 16/8/2021 passed by the Respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Case No. 1145 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. C202109000001145, Sitaram vs. State of U.P.) in terms of which the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected is also sought to be challenged.

(3.) As per the facts set out in the writ petition, the petitioner claims himself to be a recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 379/2 measuring 0.3280 hectares, recorded in Khata No. 50 situate at Village-Behada Assa, Tehsil Jaansath, District Muzafarnagar. The petitioner is stated to have purchased the aforesaid land on 2/3/2005 and thereafter claims to have become a bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is contended that the petitioner's son died untimely, leaving behind two daughters and two sons and to meet these liabilities, the petitioner desired to sell the land in question. It is also stated that the petitioner had become old and feeble and with no one to look after him, he sought permission from the Collector for transfer of the land and submitted the application in the prescribed RC Form-27. Upon the aforesaid application, a report was called from the committee headed by the Sub Divisional Officer and as per the report dtd. 13/1/2020, the land in question had been obtained by the petitioner by means of a sale deed and the petitioner was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights. It was also stated in the report that the land in question was not a public utility land and that after transfer of the same, the area of the land held by the petitioner would be 4.4150 hectares. It was mentioned in the report that the petitioner was old and remained frequently ill and in the absence of adequate irrigation facilities was finding it difficult to carry on the agricultural operations. Taking into consideration this together with the fact that his son was predeceased leaving behind the liability of two grand-daughters and two grand-sons on the petitioner and that the petitioner was in need of funds for their education and marriage, the report along with the recommendation of the Committee was submitted to the authority concerned.