Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Chhotey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 August, 2010
                                                                                           AFR

Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12630 of 2008
Petitioner :- Chhotey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajendra Yadav,Amit Krishna,R.C.Agrahari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

Heard Sri Prakash Pandey holding brief of Sri Rahul Pandey learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Counter and
rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

The petitioner who claims to belong to the Scheduled Caste category is aggrieved
by the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance) Kanpur Nagar as also the order dated 18.1.2008 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Administration) Kanpur Nagar in Case no. 3 of 2008 Chhotey Vs
State of U.P. and Others under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act.

According to Sri Pandey and the averments as contained in paragraph 4 to the writ
petition the petitioner has total agricultural land of 0.244 hectare situated in Araji
No. 130 village Garhi, District Kanpur Nagar. He proposes to purchase 0.359
hectare of land in neighboring two villages being village Sona and village
Bhairampur by selling his original agricultural land having area of 0.244 hectare in
Araji No. 130 situate at village Garhi. In view of the provisions of Section 157-A
the petitioner sought permission of the authority however the same has been
refused by the authorities to which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the intended purchase would increase his holding from 0.244 hectare to 0.359
hectare and as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Learned Standing Counsel has referred to Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act and states that the petitioner has admittedly got less than 1.26 hectare of land
and even after selling his original agricultural land and purchasing agricultural land
in other village his holding does not increase more than 1.26 hectare. He submits
that the provisions of Section 157-A of the Act are in the form of restrictions of
transfer of land by members of the Scheduled Caste and therefore the impugned
orders have rightly been passed refusing the permission.

Section 157-A is quoted here under:-

Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes-

(1) Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no
bhumidhar, or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste shall have the right to transfer
any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a
Scheduled Caste, except with the provisions approval of the Collector:
Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Collector in case where the
land held in Uttar Pradesh by the transferor on the date of application under this
section is less than 1.26 hectares or where the area of land so held in Uttar Pradesh
by the transferor on the said date is after such transfer, likely to be reduced to less
than 1.26 hectares.

(2) The Collector shall, on an application made in that behalf in the prescribed
manner, make such inquiry as may be prescribed.

The aforesaid section clearly provides that approval shall not be given by the
Collector in case land held in the State of U.P. by the intending transferor on the
date of application for permission is less than 1.26 hectare and secondly no
approval will be given if the area so held in U.P. by the person on the date of
application for approval to transfer will after such transfer reduce his area to less
than 1.26 hectare.

In the present case admittedly the petitioner does not have an area more than 1.26
hectare. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and has less than 1.26 hectares
of agricultural land. Consequently by virtue of the proviso of Section 157-A the
first condition is not satisfied and the statutory restriction would apply in the case
of the petitioner.

Consequently even if the petitioner is permitted to transfer the land in question and
purchase the land he proposes the area of his holding would not be more than 1.26
hectare and therefore there is no question of the area being reduced to less than
1.26 hectares since he does not have 1.26 hectare of land.

Such a restriction under Section 157-A appears to squarely apply in the case of the
petitioner.

In the appellate impugned order a reference has been made to purchase of land in
the name of the petitioners wife in village Sona to be an area of 1.154 hectare. The
said reference clearly appears to be incorrect since the petitioner has himself stated
that he got a sale deed executed on 9.1.2007 in respect of an area of 0.154 hectare
in village Sona. Consequently the reference to the area in the impugned appellate
order appears to be erroneous and shall be read not as 1.154 hectare but as 0.154
hectare.

With the aforesaid modification relating to area of land in village Sona referred to
in the impugned appellate order there is no other error therein. As such the relief
claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. The impugned orders are up held.

The writ petition is dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.

Order Date :- 4.8.2010/Pravin


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.104 seconds.