KARN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL THROUGH COLLECTOR HARIDWAR
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-93
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 04,2012

Karn Singh Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Uttaranchal Through Collector Haridwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments and order contained in Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 to the writ petition, whereby the land of the petitioners was vested in the State under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the Collector and the said order of Collector was affirmed in revision by the Commissioner.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a person named Rulha, son of Chhotu claiming himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste has moved an application purporting to be under Section 157 -A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of the permission dated 27 -1 -1987, which was granted in favour of the opposite parties, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 5 and 6. It was pleaded in the application that the applicant is Bhumidhar of Plot No. 60, area 7 Bigha and that the opposite parties are not members of the Scheduled Case but are Saini by caste. The opposite parties by playing fraud upon the court and by getting a fake thumb impression mark of the applicant put on the application obtained permission to sell 1/3rd of the land belonging to the applicant and on the basis thereof, the sale deed was got executed on 18 -2 -1987 which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Roorkee. The applicant also claimed that he had never made any such application for permission to sell the land. It was also contended that after sale of 1/3rd part, the remaining land remains less than the statutory limit of 3,1/8 Acre, therefore, the permission for sale is illegal and void against the provisions of Section 157 -A of the said Act. The application of the applicant Rulha was registered in the Court of Additional Collector as Case No. 3/95 -1996. It appears that during the pendency of the case, applicant Rulda had died and therefore, he was substituted by his legal heirs Karn Singh and Ajay Kumar (minors) through their mother Smt. Atarkali and an additional paragraph no. 3 -A was added to the application, wherein Karn Singh and others were said to be legal heirs of the deceased.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.