Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that proceedings initiated on 16.6.2015 by the Respondent No. 2, the Collector/District Magistrate, Meerut, District - Meerut, numbered as Nil of 2015 be quashed.
(2.) When on 6.4.1979, the Ceiling Authorities had declared 76 bighas, 16 biswas and 11 biswansis of land surplus of the D.C.M. Sri Ram Industries Ltd. and when the ceiling proceedings were finalized by the High Court, the petitioners along with the other tenure holders were granted pattas on the surplus land. When by the order dated 23/27 July 2014, the Bhumidhari rights of the petitioners which had accrued to them over the allotted land under Section 131B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act') were being withdrawn, the petitioners alongwith the other tenure holders had filed Writ - C No. 51745 of 2014. This writ petition was ultimately allowed on 28.3.2017. Thereafter, when another proceeding under Section 27(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') was initiated, the petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ - C No. 19819 of 2015 which was also allowed on 28.9.2018 and the entire proceedings were quashed.
(3.) The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings which were initiated by the notice dated 16.6.2015, by which the Respondent No. 2 had sought to declare the allotted plots of land under Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as having vested in the State since the petitioners had made certain transactions which were in violation of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Learned counsel has assailed the proceedings which were initiated under Sections 166 & 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, on the following amongst other grounds:- (i) Learned counsel had stated that the permission under Section 157-A and 157-AA of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act was required to be taken only if there was some transfer by means of sale, gift, mortgage or lease by the Bhumidhar and he, therefore, submits that when the allegation was only to the effect that the petitioners had entered into some agreement to sell the land in question with certain persons, then it could not be said that there was any transfer yet and, therefore, it could not also be said that there was any violation of any provision of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Learned counsel read out Sections 157-A, 157-AA, 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and, therefore the same are being reproduced here as under:- 157-A. Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes. - (1)Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste shall have the right to transfer any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, except with the previous approval of the Collector: Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Collector in case where the land held in Uttar Pradesh by the transfer on the date of application under this section is less than 1.26 hectares or where the area of land so held in Uttar Pradesh by the transferor on the said date is after such transfer, likely to be reduced to less than 1.26 hectares. (2) The collector shall, on an application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, make such inquiry as may be prescribed. 157-AA. Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131-B. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A, and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference:- (a) landless agricultural labourer; (b) marginal farmer; (c) small farmer; and (d) a person other than a person referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c). (2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in Clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in Clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in Clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section if a person referred to in Clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (d) of the said sub-section in the same order of preference:- (a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate; (b) secondly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate; (c) thirdly, if no person referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate. (3) If no person referred to in Sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in Sub-sections (1) and (2). (4) No transfer under this section shall be made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. [(5) A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour.]" 166. Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be void. 167.(1) The following consequences shall ensue in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely- (a) the subject-matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (b) the trees, crops and wells existing on the land on the date of transfer shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (c) The transferee may remove other movable property or the materials of any immovable property existing on such land on the date of transfer within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub-section (1) , it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. For the purposes of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorised occupants , the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the proceedings, as is clear from the chronology of events, is yet another effort of the State to take back the land which was given to the petitioners by way of pattas on the land which was declared surplus. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier when right had vested in the petitioners under Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was being sought to be withdrawn, the petitioners had filed a writ petition being Writ - C No. 51745 of 2014 which was allowed on 28.3.2017. When again the land was being sought to be taken away from them saying that the pattas were granted in violation of Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act then Writ Petition No. 19819 of 2015 had to be filed which was allowed on 28.9.2018 and this proceeding, he submits, was also initiated only to add another litigation vis-a-vis the petitioners so that the State may take back the land in question. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon T.Arivandandam vs. T.V. Stayapal and Ors., 1977 AIR(SC) 2421 submitted that this litigation, just as earlier ones, was a vexatious litigation and had no legs to stand. Learned counsel submits that when there was yet no transfer then proceedings could not have been initiated saying that the petitioners were transferring their land.;