- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. These are 13 connected writ petitions raising common question of law and facts and are directed against common judgment and order dated 2. 9. 1994, passed by Board of Revenue deciding 13 second appeals.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri Lalji Sinha assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Om appearing for respondent No. 7. The petitioner a registered society purchased certain land on various dates in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 from various tenure holders through different registered sale deeds. In December, 1976, respondent No. 4 filed 13 suits under Section 163 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the 'act') on the ground that petitioner-society has acquired more than 12. 50 acres of land by means of various sale deeds without permission of the State Government and thus, was liable to be ejected from the surplus land and the same was liable to be vested in the State. All the suits were consolidated. On the basis of pleadings between the parties Additional Collector 1st Class framed various issues. One of the issues was whether the proceedings are barred by time. Respondent No. 3 finding that. the proceedings were barred by time vide common order dated 29. 5. 1979 dismissed all the 13 cases. Respondent No. 4 went up in appeals. Appellate court vide order dated 26. 5. 1981 dismissed all the appeals. Appellate order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing 13 second appeals. Board of Revenue vide order dated 2. 9. 1994 allowed the same holding that sale deeds were void under Section 166 of the Act and the surplus land was liable to be vested in the State under Section 167. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that law as it stood at the time of execution of sale deeds would apply to the case and the Board of Revenue without considering the provisions of Section 163 as it then stood has wrongly and illegally allowed the second appeals holding that the suit would not be barred by limitation and wrongly relying upon Section 167 has held the transfers to be void.
(3.) IN reply, it has been submitted that since there is a ceiling on holding more than 12. 50 acres of land in the State of Uttar Pradesh and consequently any transfer made in violation of the said provision would be void in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 166 and it is Immaterial whether the sale deed was executed before deletion of Section 163 from the statute or thereafter. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;