- (1.) BY means of this writ petition the pe titioner has challenged the judgment and Order dated 20-09-2006 passed in Revi sion No. 19 of 2005-06, Guru Ram Das Educational Trust Society Vs. State, by which the appellate authority the learned Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal affirmed the Order of the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Dehradun dated 27-01-2006 passed in case no. 2/2002-03 U/s 166/167 of the U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act, 1950.
(2.) HEARD Sri Alok Singh, Senior Ad vocate, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed of as only a short question of interpreta tion of law is involved. Accordingly, I pro ceed to decide the writ petition finally. The brief facts of the case are that a notice U/s 166/167 under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was issued to the petitioner re quiring him to appear on 25-09-2002 to file his objection and evidence, if any, in response to the notice. The basis of no tice was the report of the Tehsildar Dehradun dated 12-07-2002 who has re ported that the petitioners have purchased 2. 121 hectares land in violation of Sec tion 154 of the Act, therefore, the excess land was liable to be declared and vested in the State U/s 166/167 of the Act. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed an objection stating therein that the peti tioner is an educational charitable trust running various institutions and the land in dispute referred in the notice being used from last 10 years for non- agricultural purpose, therefore, provisions of Chapter-8 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, including Sec tion 157 were not applicable.
(3.) THE Assistant Collector rejected this plea on the ground that the land was not declared as "non- agricultural land" as pro vided under Section 143 of the said Act. THE Assistant Collector accordingly de clared the transfer of 1. 626 hectares of land as is being void and ordered and declared the land having vested in the State Government, with a further direc tion to correct the revenue records accord ingly. Against this Order dated 27-01-2006, the revision was referred. Revisional Authority also recorded the finding to the same effect and confirmed the Order of Assistant Collector. Learned Senior counsel for the pe titioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to use his land for any purpose of whatsoever, in view of sub-Section 1 of Section 142 and Section 143 is directory in nature. According to learned Senior Advocate if in fact, the land was not be ing used for agricultural purpose and build ing was existing thereon as it was being used for the purpose of educational insti tutions, the non-declaration under Section 143 will not change the factual position. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce Section 142 (1) and 143 (1) as under; 142 (1) "a bhumidhar with transfer able rights shall, subject to the provi sions of this Act, have the right to exclusive possession of all land of which he is a bhumidhar and to use it for any purpose whatsoever. 143 (1) "where (bhumidhar with transferable rights), uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose of con nected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division may, sue motu or on an application, after making such en quiry as may be prescribed made a declaration to that effect. ";