RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shivendra Nath Singh, Mr. Ram Singh and Mr. Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent- Gram Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the agricultural lease was granted to one Ramji Lal (father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7) in respect to Khata No. 265, Khasra No. 442/1 area 0.648 hectare situated in Village- Mauja, Chiksoli, Tahsil- Chhata, District- Mathura. On the basis of agricultural lease executed in favour of Ramji Lal, the possession was delivered and Ramji Lal was recorded over the plot in question. Due to operation of the law he became bhumidhar with transferable right and recorded accordingly, over the plot in question. Ramji Lal expired leaving behind respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as his heirs and legal representative. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were accordingly, recorded over the plot in question and after death of their father, respondent No. 6 executed a registered sale deed on 10/7/2001 in favour of petitioners' father- Dayoli Ram with respect to his 1/2 share in the aforementioned disputed plot. Respondent No. 7 also executed another sale deed for remaining 1/2 share on 14/8/2001 in favour of petitioners' father. Petitioners' father expired on 23/11/2006 leaving behind the petitioners as his heir and legal representative. On the basis of sale deed executed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 petitioners' father was recorded and after death of petitioners' father, petitioners were recorded and remained in possession over the same. A complaint was made by respondent No. 5 on 1/7/2011 in respect to the sale deed executed on 10/7/2001 and 14/8/2001 on the ground that there is violation of the provisions contained under Sec. 157-AA of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, accordingly, the case registered before the Additional District Magistrate as Case No. 11 of 2011-12, under Sec. 166/167 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act). A report was submitted in the aforementioned proceedings by the authorities. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional District- Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Mathura after considering the report submitted in the proceeding as well as the evidence on record rejected the proceeding, under Sec. 166/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as not maintainable vide order dtd. 20/1/2012. Against the order dtd. 20/1/2012, respondent No. 5 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed and land has been ordered to be vested in State vide order dtd. 11/6/2015, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dtd. 11/6/2015 passed by respondent No. 2- Board of Revenue.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 16/7/2015 entertained the matter and granted interim protection.