Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) Notice on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. For the order proposed to be passed there is no need to issue notices to opposite party Nos. 3 to 7, hence notices to opposite party Nos. 3 to 7, are hereby dispensed with. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.4.2015 passed by the opposite party No. 2 in the proceedings under Sec. 143, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the order dated 1.7.2015 passed by the opposite party No. 1 in the revision preferred against the said order dated 13.4.2015. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner has constructed a house over the land measuring 0.051 hectare of Gata No. 262 in the year 1985. The said construction was done with the consent of recorded tenure holder as husband of the petitioner had paid Rs. 5,000/ - in the year 1985 for permission to construct the house. On an application moved under Sec. 143, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, for change of land uses of the land in question, the opposite party No. 2 after obtaining report from the Tehsildar concerned has rejected the same holding that the petitioner cannot claim to be the tenure holder of the land in question, as such the claim of the petitioner has no merit hence rejected. The revision preferred against the said order has also been dismissed without properly considering the submissions made therein. It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that in order to maintain the application under Sec. 143, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it is not necessary to be a tenure holder. The Assistant Collector Incharge of Sub -Division has the power even to take cognizance suo moto and pass order under Sec. 143, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which clearly means that whether any application has been moved by any person or not, in case the agricultural land is not being used for agricultural purposes, land uses of said land can be changed in exercise of powers under Sec. 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(2.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for petitioner and gone through the records.
(3.) In order to settle the controversy, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Sec. 143, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which on reproduction read as under: "Use of holding for industrial or residential purposes - -(1) Where a (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector -in -charge of the subdivision may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect. (1 -A) Where a declaration under sub -section (1) has to be made in respect of a part of the holding, the Assistant Collector -in -charge of the sub -division may, in the manner prescribed, demarcate such part for the purposes of such declaration. (2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub -section (1), the provision of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to the (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. (3) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights has been granted, before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act 1978, any loan by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation or by any other Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, on the security of any land held by such Bhumidhar, the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to such Bhumidhar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject.";