Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – ss.161, 166, 167 – Appellants-original tenure holders (since deceased) of Plot No.2902 sold it to late father of respondent nos.10 & 11 vide sale deed dtd. 24 Jan. 1973 – Father/Grandfather of respondent nos.1-8 was tenure holder of Plot Nos.2863 and 2888, he exchanged his plots with plot no.2902 owned by father of respondent nos.10 & 11, by exchange deed dtd. 2 March, 1974 – Father/Grandfather of respondent nos.1-8 filed application for his name to be recorded for Plot No.2902 –Appellants raised objection to the validity of sale deed dtd. 24 Jan. 1973– Consolidation Officer held that the exchange was permissible only with permission of the Assistant Collector in terms of s.161 of the 1950 Act which was not obtained, hence father/grandfather of respondent nos.1-8 is not entitled to be recorded as Bhumidar under the consolidation proceedings – Eventually, High Court inter alia held that it was the State Government who could apply for cancellation, if affected by the exchange deed but, it was not open to be questioned by the appellants– On appeal, held: Under the pre-amendment scheme of the 1950 Act, any transfer in contravention of the Chapter referred to u/s.166 which includes s.161 as well, were not to be automatically void but voidable – As consequence u/s.167, a suit was to be filed by the Gaon Sabha or the land holder, within six years from the date of illegal transfer – In the present case, exchange deed was executed on 2 March, 1974 – Period of limitation for filing the suit expired in March 1980 – Indisputedly, no suit was filed either by Gaon Sabha or any land holder for ejectment as envisaged u/s.167(1) – Under the pre-amended scheme of the 1950 Act, the consequence for non-compliance of seeking permission from the Assistant Collector, would in no manner take away or divest the rights/interest of the parties inter se conferred under genuine sale deed dtd. 24 Jan.1973, executed in favour of father of respondent nos.10 & 11 – Said sale deed is nowhere related to the exchange proceedings, initiated at later point of time – Appellants do not have any locus standi to claim benefit of the defect in the exchange deed dtd. 2 March 1974 – Conclusions of the High Court in the impugned judgment does not call for interference – Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s.9A(2) – U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 – r.338 – U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1982.
U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1982 – When not applicable – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It emerges from the pre amendment (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 3rd June, 1981) scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 that any transfer made in contravention of this Chapter referred to under Section
166 which includes Section 161 as well were not be automatically void but voidable and therefore, as a consequence of alleged void transfers under Section 167, a suit was required to be filed by the Gaon Sabha or the land holder, as the case may be, within limitation of six years from the date of illegal transfer as indicated in Appendix III annexed to Rule 338 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 but after the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 amended w.e.f. 3rd June, 1981, the law has changed and every transfer made in contravention of this Act became void in view of Section 166 and in consequence of void transfer, the subject land is deemed to have been vested in the State Government by operation of law free from all encumbrances, and sub-section (2) of Section 167, authorises Collector/Competent Authority to take over possession with the use of force as may be necessary. In the instant case, the exchange deed was executed on 2nd March, 1974 indisputedly without permission from the Assistant Collector provided under Section 161 and its consequence was embedded under Section 167 of the Act, 1950 authorising the Gaon Sabha or the land holder to file a suit for ejectment within a period of six years from the date of alleged illegal transfer which in the instant case had expired in March 1980 much prior to the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 was amended w.e.f. 3rd June, 1981. At least the amendment which has been made by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1982 with effect from 3 rd June, 1981 has no application on the case in hand. [Paras 16-18] [334-F-G; 335-A-D]
1.2 Under the pre-amended scheme of the Act, 1950, the consequence for non-compliance of Section 161 of the Act, 1950 seeking permission from the Assistant Collector, was indeed the requirement of law and the effect of contravention and its consequence are embedded under Section 166 and 167 of the Act, 1950 but its consequential effect, in no manner, would take away or divest the rights and interest of the parties inter se conferred in reference to the sale deed which was originally executed in favour of late ‘NDC’ in reference to plot no.2902 admeasuring 0.34 decimals by the registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973. [Para 21] [335-G; 336-A-B]
1.3 The registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 was genuine and duly executed by the parties and it is nowhere related in reference to the exchange proceedings which were initiated at a later point of time. After the sale deed was registered and executed on 24 th January, 1973 in favour of late ‘NDC’, the ownership rights with possession stands transferred. It is true that late ‘NDC’ had not initiated proceedings for claiming his Bhumidari rights under the Act, 1953 but that, in any manner will not, nullify his right of ownership vested on execution of a registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 and there is no prohibition or restriction to the contrary has been brought to notice, if any, under the Act 1950. Indisputedly, no permission was sought as contemplated under the mandate of law but under the pre-amended scheme of the Act, 1950, the effect of exchange in contravention to the provisions of the Act and its consequence as embedded under Section 166 and 167 of the Act, 1950 makes the action to be voidable and not void and it entails consequences of void transfers, in the first instance, it only confines to sirdar or asami and not applicable upon those who are claiming rights of Bhumidar. At the same time, any transfer which has been made in contravention of the provisions of this Act including permission from the Assistant Collector as required under Section 161, the ejectment may be possible only on filing of a suit by Gaon Sabha or the land holder, as the case may be, and after the decree of ejectment being obtained under sub-section (1) of Section 167 of the Act, ejectment under sub-section (2) of Section 167 be permissible and for filing of the suit, the limitation has been provided under Appendix III annexed to Rule 338 of the Rules, 1952 of which reference has been made in terms thereof suit for ejectment could be filed within a period of six years from the date of the illegal transfer. The deed of exchange in the instant case was executed between the parties on 2nd March, 1974 and the period of limitation for filing of the suit had expired in March 1980 much before the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 amended w.e.f. 3rd June, 1981 came into force. Indisputedly, no suit was filed either by Gaon Sabha or any land holder for ejectment as envisaged under Section 167(1) of the Act, 1950. That apart, even assuming for the sake of argument, the deed of exchange executed on 2nd March, 1974 even if considered to be void, taking note of the post amended provisions of the Act, 1950, it will still confine to the deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974 which was obtained without taking permission from the Assistant Collector as envisaged under Section 161 of the Act and at the best the rights to the parties on execution of exchange deed could not be given effect to and it remain inter se between parties to the exchange (late ‘KR’ and late ‘NDC’) at the same time, so far as the subject plot which was once transferred by the original tenure holders, who are throughout contesting the matter (plot no.2902 area 0.34 decimals) to late ‘NDC’ by a registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973 which has been held to be genuine and valid, will not be under any legal impediment or having any effect on the rights of the parties, and the said transaction was not subject to compliance of Section 161 of the Act, 1950 and at least no rights of any kind over plot no. 2902 area 0.34 decimals could be claimed by the original tenure holders (appellants herein) and their grievance that late ‘NDC’ had not claimed his Bhumidari rights under the Act, 1953, suffice it to say, that no such provision to the contrary has been brought to our notice that if the holder has not taken steps for claiming Bhumidari rights under the Act, 1953 that will take away or divest from the legal rights conferred to the party in whose favour registered sale deed has been executed under the mandate of law. [Paras 22-24] [336-C-G; 337-A-H; 338-A]
1.4 At least late original tenure holders, whose legal representatives are contesting the case throughout are not holding any locus standi to claim benefit of the defect in the deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974 executed between different parties who are holders to their respective plots in their own rights and the procedure mandated under the law if not being followed of taking permission from the Assistant Collector as required under Section 161 of the Act, 1950, its consequences would not revive/restore the rights to the legal heirs of original tenure holders over the subject property in question. That apart, the present appellants have never raised any plea for cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in favour of late ‘NDC’ dated 24th January, 1973 which was otherwise not the subject matter to be examined under the provisions of the Act, 1950. As regards the rights and interests which were transferred by the present appellants vide registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 in favour of late ‘NDC’ was never the subject matter of scrutiny and there was no violation/contravention of the provisions of Act, 1950 or of any other law has been pointed to this Court. At the same time, so far as non-compliance of the mandatory requirement as envisaged under Section 161 of the Act, 1950 while executing the exchange deed dated 2nd March, 1974 is concerned, parties have to bear its consequences of the void transaction as provided under Section 166 read with Section 167 of the Act, 1950 but that will not give any preference to the appellants for restoration of their rights and to nullify the registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 executed after taking due consideration in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary. The conclusions of the High Court in its judgment impugned are unassailable and does not call for interference. [Paras 25-28] [338-B-G; 339-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.