Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.5.2014 passed in the proceedings under section 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the orders 27.2.2015 and 24.7.2015 passed in revision preferred against the said order and the review of the revisional order. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a land registered at Khata No. 640 the by way of registered sale -deed dated 10.11.1998 from one Bhusey son of Bhagwant. The seller and purchaser both belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The name of petitioner was mutated on the basis of the said sale -deed in the revenue records khatauni. The petitioner in the year 2011 had moved an application under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for change of use of land. Vide order dated 15.6.2011 the land in question was declared as non -agricultural land. It is submitted that on a complaint made by a third party the proceedings under section 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated and on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar concerned the order impugned dated 22.5.2014 was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Revision No. 20141000001377 which was rejected vide order dated 27.2.2015. The petitioner thereafter had filed review petition which was rejected vide order dated 24.7.2015. It is contended that once the land was declared as non -agricultural land under section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the proceedings under section 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act could not have been initiated. Under section 143(2) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, after the declaration under section 143, the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cease to apply to the Bhumidhar with transferable rights and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of land by personal law to which he is subjected.
(3.) IT is also contended that the respondent No. 2, Assistant Collector, Mohanlalganj has committed error while declaring the land in question as agricultural land in the proceedings under section 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.;