- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector (Administration) Meerut and the order dated 26.4.2000 passed the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners are the Bhumidhars of plot No. 199 measuring area 0.506 hectares. The petitioners purchased the said plot through a registered sale-deed comprising half share of one Charan Singh, who was the sole Bhumidhar of the said plot. When the petitioners applied for mutation of their names in the Revenue Records, the Tehsildar made a complaint on 31.7.1999. Proceeding against the petitioners under Section 166 /167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the 'Act 1950') was initiated. The complaint was that the purchase made by the petitioners was hit by the provisions of Section 168-A (since repealed) of the Act, 1950. After notices were issued to the petitioners, they filed their objections and asserted that the said purchase was not hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 and there was no violation of the said proviso. However, it is stated that the Additional Collector (Administration), Meerut, the competent authority by the impugned order dated 23.12.1999 has held that the land, in question, was purchased by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 and, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioners in such land and has further held that the land, in question would, therefore, vest in the State Government. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a Revision under Section 333 of the Act, 1950, which too was dismissed by the Revisional Authority by its order dated 26.4.2000.
(2.) I have heard Sri. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land, in question, was purchased through a valid sale-deed from Charan Singh, who was the co-bhumidhar of a portion of the plot No. 199 and, therefore, the sale by Charan Singh in favour of the petitioners could not be said to be hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950.
(3.) On the other hand learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the sale of the plot could have been made only if Charan Singh was the Bhumidhar of the entire plot No. 199 and since Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 specifically proscripted the sale or transfer of fragmented portion of any holding, the sale in favour of the petitioners was in violation of the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950. The provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 reads as follows: 168.A. Transfer of fragments.--Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, no person shall transfer whether by sale, gift or exchange any fragment situate in a consolidated area except where the transfer is in favour of tenure-holder who has a plot contiguous to the fragment or where the transfer is not in favour of any such tenure-holder [the whole or so much of the plot in which the person has bhumidhari rights, which pertains to the fragment is thereby transferred,] 2. The transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. 3. When a bhumidhar has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) the provisions of Section 167 shall mutatis mutandis, apply.;