MAHADEV Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that one Lala son of Briji was recorded tenure holder as Bhumidhar of the land of plot no. 47 are 3 Bigha 11 Bishwa relating to Khata No. 165 village Lohramau, pargana and district Lucknow. The land was already covered with the definition of fragment under Section 3-8 (a)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Only 2 bigha land of this plot was sold by Lala in favour of the petitioner vide sale -deed dated 06.11.1991. Name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record in place of Lala on whole of the land of the plot which is admitted, wrongly, to the petitioner as he should have been recorded as co-tenant with Lala because only 2 bigha land was purchased and so said by him in paragraph 6 of the writ petition and that he remained in possession of only 2 bigha land of the plot. It is also not disputed that the land situates in consolidated area and petitioner was not having any contiguous land of this plot and he was also not co-sharer in the Khata.

(3.) FIRST argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that land was purchased in the year, 1991 and village in which the land situates was within the limit of Lucknow Nagar Nigam since the year, 1987 and the provisions of the Act were not applicable on the date of purchase. A certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam annexure-7 of the writ petition was also referred. Learned Standing Counsel not disputed the correctness of this certificate but argued that only due to this fact that village was in the limit of Nagar Nigam on the date of sale, it cannot be accepted that the provisions of the Act become inapplicable. He referred law on the point 1975 AWC 23 Avtar Krishna vs. Gaon Sabha, where it was held by this Court that even if land situates in Municipal area, the provisions of the act and also of U.P. Consolidation on Land Holdings Act continued to apply. No law in reply was cited on behalf of the petitioner. Copy of the sale deed is also available on the writ file showing that sale of agricultural land was made to the petitioner. No declaration under Section 143 of the Act was sought. Still nowhere, it is said that the land is being used for other than agricultural purposes. In view of the law laid down and above discussions, petitioner is not entitled for any relief on this ground.