NANHEY KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Nanhey Khan and others against the judgment dated 9-10-95 passed by learned Additional Com­missioner, Meerut.

(2.) THE revisionist Shafi Mohd got a sale-deed executed in his favour in respect of an area of 1.1 5. 0 from plot No. 205 total area of which is 6.7. 12. Since the area pur­chased is less than 3. 125 acres hence it is hit by Section 168-A of the UPZA and LR Act. The learned trial Court called for a report from the Tehsil. The allegation was certified that the area which has been pur­chased by the revisionist is less than the prescribed limits, hence it is hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act. The learned trial Court ordered that the land in dispute has vested in the State under Section 167 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order revisionist preferred a revision before the Commissioner's Court which too was dismissed on the same grounds. Hence, this second revision.

(3.) I agree with the observations made by the Courts below that an agreement to sale is not a sale-deed. Unless the land is duly transferred by way of executing the same in favour of purchaser for some con­sideration, no rights could be given on the basis of that agreement to sale. The sale deed executed in favour of Shafi Mohd. who subsequently died during the penden­cy of the suit and his legal heirs were sub­stituted. The area was less than 3.125 acres. The total area purchased is 1.15.O. The sale-deed is hit by the provisions of Sect ion 168-A of the Act or 157 of the Act then such a sale is void-ab-initio and the land which has been purchased automatically gets vested in the state under Section 167 of the Act. It is not a case of Mend Milan or adjoining field belonging to the revisionist hence the finding given by the Courts below do not suffer from any material or jurisdictional error which needs further investigation.