- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of Respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, executed by one Raghubar, has been held to be hit by Section 157 -A / 157 -AA of the U.P. Zaminari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The same has therefore been treated to be a void transaction and the land, subject matter of the sale, has been ordered to be recorded in the name of the State.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the sale deed, the vendor had mentioned that he belongs to the Backward Category. The petitioner was not aware of the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Castes. The second contention is that in view of Rule 338 of the Act, the proceedings could have been initiated within a period of 6 years from the sale deed. In the case at hand, the proceedings have been initiated upon a complaint which was made almost 13 years after the sale deed was executed and the name of the petitioner had been duly mutated in the revenue records on its basis.
(3.) It is further contended that once Rules have been framed by the State, especially Rule 338 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, the Court is bound to abide by the same and the orders that have been passed, contrary to the said rule, are not sustainable. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners' vendor belongs to the Scheduled Caste. This finding has not been specifically challenged in the writ petition. The only contention is that the petitioner was under the impression that his vendor was an OBC. In so far as, the contention that the proceeding against the petitioner was barred by time in view of Rule 338 and the entry at Sl.No.19 contained in Appendix III of the Rules, it would be relevant to note the admitted facts.;