NAIPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-342
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 31,2010

NAIPAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) AGAINST the order dated 15.4.1977 and 11.7.1977 vesting the land purchased by the petitioners by means of sale deed in the Gaon Sabha being in excess of pre­scribed limit under section 154 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), writ petition No. 3968 of 1994 was filed by the petitioners. Vide judgment and order dated 13.1.2009 this Court noticing the amendment brought in section 154 of the Act vide order dated 13.1.2009 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the peti­tioners to make an application under the proviso to section 154 (3) of the Act and upon such application being filed the con­cerned authority to take a decision in ac­cordance with law after giving due oppor­tunity of hearing. A perusal of the newly added sub-section (3) of section 154 of the Act goes to show that if transfer is in excess of the limit prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Act, prior approval of the State Government is necessary. The proviso to the said section further pro­vides that in case prior approval of the State Government has not been obtained, the State Government may on an applica­tion give post facto approval in such man­ner and on payment of an amount of fine which may be equal to 25% of the costs of the land which shall be the same as de­termined by the Collector for the purpose of Stamp duty.
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provi­sions clearly goes to show that it is the State Government, who has been empowered to grant post facto approval on the conditions provided in the proviso and thus in accor­dance with the opportunity given by this Court vide judgment and order dated 13.1.2009, the petitioners ought to have ap­proached the State Government. However, it appears that the petitioners made appli­cation before the Additional Collector. Additional Collector finding that he has no power to entertain or pass any order on the application dismissed the same with liberty to the petitioners to approach the State Government, if so advised.;


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