B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of U.P. is directed against the order dated 14 -10 -1981 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh acting as the Prescribed Appellate Authority under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. Respondent No. 2 intended to execute a sale deed in respect of house No. old 213N (present No. 4/59 -A) Pahasu House, Aligarh (total area 1088 sq. meters), having covered area of 222.29 sq. mtrs. and appurtenant land 865.79 sq. mtrs. Respondent No. 1, the vendor submitted a declaration before the Sub -Registrar, Aligarh and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the vendees also submitted a statement giving details of the property owned by them. The Sub -Registrar Aligarh referred the declaration submitted by Respondent No. 1 to the Competent Authority constituted under the Act for verifying whether the proposed transfer of the property in question violated the provisions of Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act. The Competent Authority got the enquiry made and in the meanwhile the State Government has also issued a direction (Annexure -2 to the petition) to the Director, U.P. Urban Ceiling, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow that in case any transfer was intended to be made - by any person and the land was governed by the provisions of the Act, a clarification may be obtained by the Registrar from the vendors and the vendees as to whether the transfer intended to be made violates the provisions of Section 5(3) and Section 10(4) of the Act. As the enquiry was made by the Sub -Registrar from the Competent Authority as stated above, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 9 -6 -81 that by the proposed transfer the provisions of Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act are violated, hence the registration of the intended transfer need not be made. Against this order an appeal was filed by Respondent No. 1, which was allowed by order dated 14 -10 -81. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the State of U.P.
(3.) I have heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.K. Gupta for the Respondents.;