- (1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1. Notice need not be issued to the Respondents No.2 to 6 in view of the order being passed herein. At the outset learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj in proceedings under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the petitioners have got alternative statutory remedy and, therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained. To the preliminary objection raised by learned Standing Counsel, Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when there is total violation of principles of natural justice in passing an administrative order the Writ Court can interfere in such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such there is no alternative statutory remedy available to him hence he would like to pursue this writ petition.
(2.) ACCORDING to Sri R.K. Gupta, there are various allegations of malafide made in paragraph 7 to 13 of the writ petition regarding relationship of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, with a political person, who has been named in the aforesaid paragraph and the Respondents No.2 to 6 are the so called men of the politician and, therefore, under political pressure of the politician, who is alleged to be relative of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 has been passed. As such, apart from being ex-parte against the petitioners, who are purchasers of the land from the Respondents No.2 to 6, the impugned order is malafide. Insofar as the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of averments made in paragraph 7 to 13 are concerned, the law is settled that if malafide are alleged against a person that person must be made a party in the proceedings so that he can have an opportunity of defence and his say before the Court. When malafide is a ground taken in the writ petition and such person against whom malafide is alleged have not been made party, this Court will not pass any order on that basis behind the back of such person as such the writ petition on the ground of malafide cannot be entertained since the persons against whom malafide has been alleged have not been made a party. In this case malafide is alleged against a politician named in the writ petition as also the District Magistrate, Maharajganj. Neither the politician has been made a party in this writ petition nor the District Magistrate/Collector has been made a party in person, therefore, the writ petition on that ground cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Maharajganj, is illegal and ex-parte and that no notice was given to the petitioner. A perusal of the provision of Section 166 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act indicate that every transfer in contravention of the Provisions of the Act shall be void. In the present case, the land belonged to scheduled caste category person and there was restriction on its transfer under Section 157-A of the Act inasmuch as the permission of the Collector was required before such person belonging to the scheduled caste category can transfer the land to a person who is not scheduled caste category person. In the absence of any permission taken under Section 157-A of the Act there would be clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and hence under Section 166 of the Act the said transfer being in contravention of Section 157-A is void. The consequence of such a void transfer have been provided under Section 167 of the Act and it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession of the land or direct that any person occupying it to be evicted therefrom and it shall vest in the State. The aforesaid provision is a mandatory provision where when there is violation of provisions of Section 157-A of the Act, the transfer is void and the consequence of such void transfer are by operation of law. There is? no provision of any notice being issued to the purchaser or seller who has violated the provision of Section 157-A of the Act since the consequences are by operation of law due to act of the person and not under any order of an authority as such no error can be found in the impugned order. There is no denial in the writ petition that the Respondents No.2 to 6 are not of scheduled caste category. There is also no denial in the writ petition that no permission was taken before the property of scheduled caste person was purchased by the petitioners as such there is no error in the order dated 06.10.2010 and hence it requires no interference.
(3.) INSOFAR as the other order assailed in this writ petition being the order dated 30.08.2012 is concerned, it has been passed on restoration application filed by the petitioners which restoration application has been dismissed for the reason that the earlier order dated 06.10.2010 was an administrative order and no restoration application can be maintained there against. No error can be found in the order dated 30.08.2012. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.;