SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) The respondent no. 5 was Bhumidhar of Plot No. 232M, the total area of which was 8-18-12. Through sale deed dated 20.4.1987, respondent no. 5 transferred 3 bighas in the said plot in favour of the petitioners. The total area transferred through sale deed dated 20.4.1987 was less than 3.125 acres defined as a fragment in Section 3(8-A) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'). Proceedings under Sections 168-A/167 of the Act, 1950 were instituted against the petitioners and Case No. 6 of 1991 was registered in the court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Bulandshahar. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Bulandshahar vide his order dated 23.2.1994 held that as the transfer through sale deed dated 20.4.1987 was of a fragment, i.e., less than 3.125 acres, therefore, the sale deed was in violation of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 and thus void and the plot was liable to vest in the State Government under Section 167 of the Act, 1950. Against the order dated 23.2.1994 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, the petitioners filed Revision No. 39 of 1993- 94 under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut who vide his order dated 14.7.1994 submitted a reference to the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, i.e., respondent no. 1 recommending that the order dated 23.2.1994 passed by the Additional District Magistrate be set-aside. On the aforesaid reference of the Additional Commissioner, Reference No. 6 of 1994-95 was registered before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, i.e., respondent no. 1 and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 23.5.1995 rejected the reference and consequently dismissed Revision No. 39 of 1993-94. The orders dated 23.5.1995 and 23.2.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue, i.e., respondent no. 1 and the Additional District Magistrate, i.e., respondent no. 2 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) In their orders dated 23.5.1995 and 23.2.1994, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have held that the transfer through sale deed dated 20.4.1987 amounted to fragmentation of holding and attracted the provisions of Section 167/Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 as through the sale deed there was a distinct transfer of three bighas and the petitioners did not become a co-bhumidhar of the holding as a consequence of the sale deed but could become a separate tenure holder.;