- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issue of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and or der dated 3-1-2000 (Annexure No. 2) passed by respondent no. 1 and order dated 11-1-1999 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent no. 2 respec tively.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Bharat Singh was Bhumidhar of plots nos. 68 area 7-16-4 Bigha, plot no. 118 area 0-5-9 bigha, plot no. 122, area 6-3-17, total area 14-5-10 bigha. He ex ecuted a sale deed in favour of Deshpal (father of petitioner no. 1) and Karan Pal Singh and Krishan Pal Singh (both sons of Phool Singh), who are peti tioner nos. 2 and 3 on 26-8-1988 in respect of 1/8th share of undivided por tion of these plots. Proceedings were initiated under Section 168a of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (for Short the Act) regarding the transferred land by way of the sale deed dated 26-8-1988 on the ground that the sale deed was hit by the pro visions of Section 168a of the said Act and that the sale deed is void as per provision of Section 166 of the Act. It was held by the Additional Collector Haridwar (respondent no. 2) in his judgment and order dated 11-1-1999 that the land under the sale deed be ing fragment vested in the State under the provisions of Section 167 of the Act. It was also held that the sale is void ab initio being fragment. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners filed a Revision No. 42/98-99 before the Additional Commissioner Saharanpur. Ultimately, the revision was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner Saharanpur Region, who confirmed the order of the Additional Collector passed in the proceedings under Sections 168 A and 167 of the Act in Case No. 2/97-98, State Vs. Manoj and others. This fact has not been disputed that the sale deed was executed by Bharat Singh in favour of Deshpal Singh, father of the petitioner No. 1 and Karanpal Singh and Krishnapal Singh, sons of Phool Singh. It is also not dis puted that 1/8th undivided share was transferred by Bharat Singh.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the peti tioner Sri M. S. Tyagi has submitted that since it was a sale deed in respect of a share only, it would not amount to frag mentation of the holdings. LEARNED Standing Counsel has contended that Sri Bharat Singh transferred the land in question only of 1/8th share by way of sale deed, which is less than 3. 125 acres, which is a fragment as defined in Section 3 (8-a) (b) of the Act. The only question involved in this case is as to whether the sale deed executed by Sri Bharat Singh is hit by Section 168a of the Act or not.;