- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
(2.) The petitioner claims to have purchased the land through a sale deed from one Hari Singh on 5.10.1981. Along with the petitioner one Anand Prakash also purchased land through a similar sale deed from Khem Chand. The respondent no. 5 moved a complaint that the said sale deed was without prior permission from the Assistant Collector as required under Section 157-A and was therefore a void transaction under Section 166 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. This complaint was moved in 2004.
(3.) This petition had been adjourned on 12th August, 2011 after framing the questions to be answered by the learned counsel. The order is quoted herein below:- "Supplementary-affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the action taken is barred by limitation and secondly once the land had been acquired in the year 1996 and other rights have intervened, there could not have been a declaration that the subject matter of transfer was void in terms of Section 166 read with Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The undisputed position is that the action has been taken on a complaint that the sale, which is subject matter of dispute, was in violation of Section 157-A of the Act. Learned counsel contends that this transaction was subsequently followed by other transactions coupled with the acquisition of the land and, therefore, in such circumstances, rights having been transferred in the manner aforesaid, the proceedings under Section 167 are without jurisdiction. Learned Standing Counsel submits that Section 167 is peremptory in nature and if the transaction is void and in violation of Section 157-A, then according to Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 167, the subject matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have been vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and, as such, any other consequential declaration of right or intervention of right will not bar the proceedings, as there cannot be a estoppel against statue. In the instant case, the transaction is of 5.10.1981 and the amendment in the provisions of Section 167 to the aforesaid effect were already brought into force w.e.f. 3.6.1981. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to further study the matter. Put up on Tuesday next.";