WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

AFR
Reserved on 16.8.2021
Delivered on 06.9.2021
Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4340 of 2021

Petitioner :- Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of report

dated 16.03.2020 submitted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur as
well as for quashing the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Additional
District Magistrate (Administration) Rampur/respondent No.2 in
proceedings initiated under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 (hereinafter called as “the Code”).

3. The facts, in nutshell, as disclosed in the petition are that

petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called as “Act, 1860”) in the year
1995. It was in the year 2005 that State of Uttar Pradesh enacted U.P.
Act No.19 of 2006 and thus came into existence the Mohammad Ali
Jauhar University Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as “Act, 2005”). The
preamble of the Act, 2005 was as under :

“An Act to establish and incorporate a Teaching University

sponsored by Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust at Rampur
in Uttar Pradesh and to provide for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

4. Pursuant to the enactment of Act, 2005, the State Government

in exercise of power under Section 154(2) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as “Act, 1950”) on
07.11.2005 granted permission to Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar
Trust (hereinafter called as “Trust”) to acquire 400 acres of land
against ceiling of 12.5 acres (5.0586 hectare) for establishment of
University. The said permission was granted with certain
restrictions/conditions, which are as under :

^^¼1½ mDr Hkwfe /kkfjr djus gsrq fd;k x;k laØe.k izpfyr vf/kfu;eksa]
fu;eksa] fofu;eksa vkfn ,oa le;≤ ij tkjh fd, x;s 'kklukns’kksa ds
v/khu gksxkA
¼2½ mDr VªLV }kjk Hkwfe dk mi;ksx vafdr 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvks dh
[email protected] gsrq ;g vkns’k tkjh gksus ds 05 o"kZ ds Hkhrj dj fy;k
tk;sxk ,oa fdlh Hkh n’kk esa mDr iz;kstu ls fHkUu iz;kstu ds fy, ugha
fd;k tk;sxkA
¼3½ laLFkk@mlds fdlh Hkh inkf/kdkjh }kjk Hkwfe dk dksbZ Hkh Hkkx
fdlh laLFkk@O;fDr dks fdlh Hkh :i esa 'kklu dh iwokZuqefr ds fcuk
gLrkUrj.k ugha fd;k tk;sxk] ysfdu _.k izkIr djus ds mn~ns’; ls mDr
VªLV dks iz’uxr Hkwfe fcuk dCtk fn, foRrh; laLFkkvksa ds i{k esa cU/kd
j[kus dk vf/kdkj jgsxkA
¼4½ VªLV }kjk izR;sd foRrh; o"kZ ds vUr rd Ø;@/kkfjr dh xbZ
[email protected] vkfn dk foLr`r fooj.k ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqj }kjk 'kklu dh
izR;sd vizSy ekl esa izLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA
¼5½ mi;qZDr fdlh Hkh ’krZ dk mYya?ku gksus ij 12-50 ,dM ls] tks Hkh
Hkwfe vf/kd gksxh] mls jkT; ljdkj esa fufgr dj fy;k tk;sxk rFkk ,sls
fufgru ds cnys dksbZ izfrdj ugha fn;k tk,xk] ysfdu ,sls fufgru ds
iwoZ VªLV dks lquokbZ dks ,d volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

¼6½ VªLV }kjk LFkkfir fd;s tkus okys f’k{k.k laLFkkuksa@ladk;ksa gsrq fu/
kkZfjr ekud ds vuqlkj Hkwfe rFkk mlls lEcfU/kr ,u0vks0lh0 iz’kklfud
foHkkx ds fu/kkZfjr ekud ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;k tkuk gksxkA**

5. Thereafter, on 17.01.2006, the State Government further

permitted the petitioner-Trust to purchase 45.91 acres (18.587 hectare)
land. The said permission was in continuation with earlier order dated
07.11.2005 with the same condition. Thereafter, on 16.9.2006, an
additional permission for purchase of 25 acres land was granted by the
State Government to the Trust with the same conditions as was laid
down in the earlier order dated 7.11.2005. Copies of permission
granted by the State Government have been brought on record as
Annexures 3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition.

6. According to the petitioner-Trust, an inspection was made by

Sub-Divisional Officer, Tanda, District Rampur on 28.4.2009 and a
report was submitted to the District Magistrate, Rampur wherein it
was stated that construction was going on over 24000 Sq.Mts. of land.
Details of construction being carried out by the Trust was given in the
said report.

7. It was in the year 2020, on report submitted by Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Sadar to the District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter
called as “Act, 1960”) that matter was assigned to the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Rampur. On 28.02.2020, the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) directed the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate to prepare a report observing that Section 10(2)
of Act, 1960 was not applicable and was wrongly invoked. On
02.03.2020, the District Magistrate directed the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate to prepare report in accordance with the observation of
Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) pursuant to
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

which a detailed report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate to respondent No.2 i.e. District Magistrate, Rampur on
16.03.2020. On 17.03.2020, the matter was referred to respondent
No.3 by District Magistrate directing him to adjudicate the matter on
merits under Section 104/105 of the Code.

8. The report dated 16.03.2020 contain four major allegations

against the petitioner-Trust i.e.

(i) Violation of Condition No.1 of the permission granted by

State Government in the year 2005 specially by violating
Section 157-A of the Act, 1950 and also wrongfully
acquiring the chak road.

(ii) Condition No.2 was also violated as the completion time

fixed in the permission i.e. 5 years was also not adhered
to by the petitioner-Trust and a mosque was constructed
within the premises of University.

(iii) Condition No.4, which was in regard to the submission of

annual report, the status of purchase and acquisition of
land and construction thereon was to be reported to the
District Administration annually but the Trust failed to
adhere to the said condition.

(iv) The Trust was not doing any work in public interest.

9. Taking cognizance on the report, a notice was issued on

18.03.2020 by respondent no.3 to the Trust. On 14.08.2020, the
petitioner Trust through an advocate had submitted an application
before respondent No.3 that Chairman of the Trust was languishing in
Sitapur Jail and no notice was served upon the petitioner-Trust and it
came to the knowledge only through the media reports. It was further
brought to the notice of respondent No.3 that as the Chairman and
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Secretary both are in Sitapur Jail, proper reply could not be filed.
However, on 17.09.2020, a reply was filed on behalf of the Trust
before respondent No.3 stating that report dated 16.03.2020 was an ex
parte report.

10. The Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Rampur

(respondent No.3), after hearing the State as well as the petitioner-
Trust, vide order dated 16.01.2021 held that the petitioner-Trust had
violated the condition laid down in the permission granted on
07.11.2005, as such land in excess of 12.50 acre stood vested in the
State in view of Section 104/105 of the Code.

11. Sri Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that all the active members of the Trust such as Mohammad
Azam Khan (President), Dr. Tazeen Fatima (Secretary) and Abdullah
Azam Khan (Member) are in Sitapur Jail since 26.02.2020 and no
notice was served upon them in jail. The objection was filed only on
behalf of the Trust on 17.09.2020 and preliminary objection regarding
jurisdiction was filed which was wrongly rejected on 14.10.2020. The
said order is under challenge before the Board of Revenue. He further
contended that written submission, which was submitted by the State
was not served upon the petitioner and they were not granted time to
rebutt the same.

12. Learned counsel emphasised that once the Trust was granted
permission under Section 154(2) of the Act, 1950, the land purchased
from different tenure holders, details of which have been given in para
16 of the writ petition and declaration under Section 143 of the Act,
1950 was made for large part of the land. Further, the inspection
report dated 28.4.2009 fortifies the fact that condition No.2 was
fulfilled by the Trust as construction was made over 24000 Sq.Mts. of
land.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

13. Sri Kazmi further submitted that no land has been purchased in
contravention of Section 157-A of the Act of 1950 and the
proceedings, which was initiated, was turned down by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Rampur and Commissioner, Moradabad on
17.7.2013 and 7.11.2013, and the said orders were challenged before
the Board of Revenue after considerable delay and the Board of
Revenue, on 14.01.2020, reversed the orders of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and Commissioner, which is pending consideration before
this Court.

14. As far as finding recorded for violation of Condition No.4 of

the permission is concerned, he submitted that the District Authorities
are well aware of the sale deeds executed in favour of the Trust and
the report dated 28.4.2009 is ample proof for the said charge. He
further tried to impress upon, that University was doing a great public
work by imparting education in 23 different streams and was catering
to large area of population. Lastly, it was contended that if the land
was acquired in excess of permission granted under Section 154(2) of
the Act, 1950, the same is saved by provisions of Section 154(3),
which provides for approval of the State Government, if any
application is filed and the approval is made after deposit of fine, as
contained in the explanation to the said section.

15. Opposing the writ petition, learned Additional Advocate

General Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, submitted that the order impugned
under Section 104/105 of the Code was revisable under Section 210 of
the Code and writ petition was not maintainable.

16. However, on merits, he contended that the permission granted

on 07.11.2005 was very specific and it provided that any land, which
was acquired, was subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules. In
the present case, land was acquired from members of Scheduled Caste
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

community such as Laxman Singh, Bhagwan Das, Rajveer, Mahesh,

Chandrawati, Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra Singh, all resident of
Village Seegankhera as well as Bansi Singh, who is a lease holder
under Section 4-A of the Act, 1960, without obtaining mandatory
permission under Section 157-A of the Act, 1950 i.e. Section 89 of the
Code. Not only the land of Scheduled Caste community was taken
without permission, but also the Chak Road and the land adjoining the
river, which is a public utility land of Gaon Sabha, was also taken
over by the Trust. Further, the land of number of tenure holders had
been forcibly taken by the Trust and the proceedings under Section
134 of the Code is pending before the Revenue Authorities. It was
further contended that not only this, the tenure holders had lodged first
information report against the Trustees. It is also contended that the
petitioner-Trust had taken over the land of enemy property. About 26
farmers had lodged a first information report against the Chairman of
the Trust Mohammad Azam Khan for land grabbing.

17. Replying to the argument of petitioner that no land from the

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe was purchased by the Trust without
consent of District Magistrate, it was contended that after the order of
Board of Revenue dated 14.01.2020 petitioner -Trust preferred Writ -
B No.437 of 2020 (Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State of
U.P. and Another) and this Court on 21.10.2020 had dismissed the
petition filed by the Trust in which the counsel, after filing the writ
petition, did not appear before the Court. Once the writ was dismissed,
and it was held that the sale deed executed by person belonging to
Scheduled Caste in favour of the member of general category being
hit by provision of Section 157-A, the condition No.1 stands violated.

18. Secondly, the permission granted on 7.11.2005 was specific in

regard to completion of work within five years, while the report dated
28.4.2009 only takes note of the fact that certain constructions were in
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

progress over certain part of land and the petitioner has not brought
any material on record to prove that construction was completed
within the time fixed by the State Government and the intimation was
given. Sri Singh further contended that construction of a mosque
inside the University premises was against the spirit of sanction
granted by the State Government on 07.11.2005 which categorically
provided that the land was strictly to be used for educational Trust and
not otherwise.

19. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the
material available on record.

20. Before proceeding to decide the issue in hand, a necessary

glance of certain provisions of Act, 1950 as well as Code is necessary.
Relevant Sections 154, 157-A, 157-C, 166 and 167 of the Act, 1950
and Sections 89, 98, 104, 105 and 230 of Code are extracted
hereasunder:

Provisions of Act, 1950

“154. Restriction on transfer by a bhumidhar.- (1) Save as
provided in sub-section (2), no bhumidhar shall have the right
to transfer by sale or gift, any land other than tea garden to any
person where the transferee shall, as a result of such sale or
gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any,
held by his family will in the aggregate, exceed 5.0586 hectares
(12.50 acres) in Uttar Pradesh.
Explanation.- For the removal of doubt it is hereby
declared that in this sub-section the expression "person" shall
include and be deemed to have included on June 15, 1976 a
"Co-operative Society" :
Provided that where the transferee is a Co-operative
Society, the land held by it having been pooled by its members
under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Uttar
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 shall not be taken
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

into account in computing the 5.0586 hectares (12.50 acres)

land held by it.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any other law relating to
the land tenures for the time being in force, the State
Government may, by general or special order, authorise
transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1), if it
is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered
cooperative society or an institution established for a
charitable purpose, which does not have land sufficient for its
need or that the transfer is in the interest of general public.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the
expression "family" shall mean the transferee, his or her wife or
husband (as the case may be) and minor children, and where
transferee is a minor also his or her parents.
(3) For every transfer of land in excess of the limit
prescribed under subsection (1) prior approval of the State
Government shall be necessary :
Provided that where the prior approval of the State
Government is not obtained under this sub-section, the State
Government may on an application give its approval afterward
in such manner and on payment in such manner of an amount,
as fine, equal to twenty five per cent of the cost of the land as
may be prescribed. The cost of the land shall be such as
determined by the Collector for stamp duty.
Provided further that where the State Government is
satisfied that any transfer has been made in public interest, it
may exempt any such transferee from the payment of fine under
this sub-section”
“157A. 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:
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

10

Provided that no such approval shall be given by the

Collector in case where the land held in Uttar Pradesh by the
transferor 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.”

“157C. Mortgage of holdings by members of Scheduled Caste

or Scheduled Tribe in certain circumstances. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 157-A and
157-B, a bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe may mortgage without possession his
holding or part thereof in the circumstances specified in sub-
section (3) of Section 152.
Explanation.- In. this chapter, the expressions 'Scheduled
Castes' and 'Scheduled Tribes' shall mean respectively the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes specified in relation
to Uttar Pradesh under Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution.”

“166. Transfer made in contravention of the Act to be void.-

Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this
Act shall be void.”
“167. Consequences of void transfers- (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; and
(c) the transferee may remove other moveable property or
the materials of any immovable property existing on such
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11

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.”

Provisions of Code
“89. Restrictions on transfer by bhumidhar.-(1) No bhumidhar
shall have the right to transfer any holding or part thereof
where such transfer contravenes or is likely to contravene the
provisions of sub-section (2) or sub-section (3).
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), no person
shall have the right to acquire by purchase or gift any holding
or part thereof from a bhumidhar with transferable rights,
where the transferee shall, as a result of such acquisition,
become entitled to land which together with land, if any, held
by such transferee and where the transferee is a natural person,
also together with land, if any, held by his family shall exceed
5.0586 hectares in Uttar Pradesh.
(3) The State Government or an officer authorized for
this purpose under this Act may approve an acquisition or
purchased done or propose to be done, in excess of the limits
specified in sub-section (2), if such acquisition or purchase is in
favour of a registered firm, company, partnership firm, limited
liability partnership firm, trust, society or any educational or a
charitable institution; and if it is of opinion that the acquisition
or purchase would be in public interest and likely to generate
economic activities (other than agricultural) and provide
employment. In such case, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 shall not
apply to such acquisition :
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

12

Provided that where the land has been acquired or

purchased by a registered firm, company, partnership firm,
limited liability partnership firm, trust, society or any
educational or a charitable institution, without obtaining prior
approval under this sub-section the State Government or an
officer authorized for this purpose under this Act, may give its
approval for regularizing such acquisition or purchase
afterwards on payment of an amount as fine, which shall be five
percent of the cost of the land in excess of the limit prescribed
under sub-section (2), calculated as per the circulated as per
the circle rate prevailing at the time of making the application.
(4) Permission under sub-section (3) for acquisition or
purchase of land by a registered firm, company, partnership
firm, limited liability partnership firm, trust, society or any
educational or a charitable institution in excess of limits
prescribed under sub-section (2) shall be granted, on the
conditions and in the manner prescribed, by:-
(i) the Collector concerned for acquisition or purchase
of land upto 20.2344 hectares ;
(ii) the Commissioner concerned for acquisition or
purchase of land more than 20.2344 hectares and
upto 40.4688 hectares ;
(iii) the State Government for acquisition or purchase of
land more than 40.4688 hectares:
Provided that if the applicant fails to set up the project
within a period of five years from the date of grant of
permission under sub section (3), the same shall lapse and the
land acquired or purchased in excess of the limit prescribed
under sub-section (2) shall vest in the State and the
consequences of section 105 shall become applicable:
Provided further that the State Government may extend
the period of permission granted under sub section (3) for a
further period of maximum three years, after recording reasons
for the same."
"98. Restrictions on transfer by bhumidhars belonging to a
scheduled caste- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

13

Chapter, no bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled caste shall

have the right to transfer, by way of sale, gift, mortgage or
lease any land to a person not belonging to a scheduled caste,
except with the previous permission of the Collector in writing:
Provided that the permission by the Collector may be
granted only when-
(a) the bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled caste has no
surviving heir specified in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
Section 108 or clause (a) of Section 110, as the case may
be; or
(b) the bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled caste has settled
or is ordinarily residing in the district other than that in
which the land proposed to be transferred is situate or in
any other State for the purpose of any service or any
trade, occupation, profession or business; or
(c) the Collector is, for the reasons prescribed, satisfied that
it is necessary to grant the permission for transfer of
land.
(2) For the purposes of granting permission under this section,
the Collector may make such inquiry as may be prescribed."
“104. Every Lease or transfer of interest in any holding or part
thereof made by a bhumidhar or any asami in contravention of
the provisions of this Code shall be void.”
105. Consequences of transfer by bhumidhar in contravention
of the Code.- (1) Where transfer of interest in any holding or
part made by a bhumidhar is void under Section 104, the
following consequences shall, with effect from the date of such
transfer, ensue, namely--
(a) the subject matter of such transfer shall vest in the State
Government free from all encumbrances;
(b) the trees; crops, wells and other improvements; existing on
such holding or part shall vest in the State Government free
from all encumbrances;
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

14

(c) the interests of the transferor and the transferee in the

properties specified in clauses (a) and (b) shall stand
extinguished;
(d) the extinction of interest of the transferor under clause (c)
shall operate to extinguish the interest of any asami holding
under him;
(e) the provisions of this section shall not apply to any lease
made under section 94.
(2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State
Government under subsection (1) it shall be lawful for the
Collector to take over possession of such land and other
property, and to direct that any person occupying such land or
property be evicted therefrom, and for that purpose, the
Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be
necessary and the provisions of Section 59 mutatis mutandis
shall apply to such property.”

230. Repeal.- (1) The enactments specified in the First

Schedule are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the
repeal of such enactments shall not affect--
(a) the continuance in force of any such enactment in
the State of Uttarakhand;
(b) the previous operation of any such enactment or
anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(c) any other enactment in which such enactment has
been applied, incorporated or referred to; or
(d) the validity, invalidity, effect or consequences of
anything already done or suffered, or any right,
title or obligation or liability already acquired,
accrued or incurred (including, in particular, the
vesting in the State of all estates and the cessation
of all rights, title and interest of all the
intermediaries therein), or any remedy or
proceeding in respect thereof, or any release or
discharge of or from any debt, penalty, obligation,
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

15

liability, claim or demand, or any indemnity

already granted or the proof of any past act or
thing; or
(e) any principle or rule of law or established
jurisdiction, form or course of pleading practice or
procedure or existing usage, custom, privilege,
restriction, exemption, office or appointment:
Provided that anything done or any action taken
(including any rules, manuals, assessments, appointments and
transfers made, notifications, summonses, notices, warrants,
proclamations issued, powers conferred, leases granted,
boundary marks fixed, records of rights and other records
prepared or maintained, right acquired or liabilities incurred)
under any such enactment shall, in so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Code, be deemed to have
been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this
Code, and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and
until they are superseded by anything done or action taken
under this Code.”
21. The provisions of Section 89 of Code is corresponding to
Section 154 of Act, 1950. Similarly, Section 98 of Code is
corresponding Section 157-A of the Act, 1950. Further, Section 104
and 105 of the Code are corresponding to Sections 166 and 167 of the
Act, 1950 while Section 230 of the Code was introduced on 11.2.2016
repealing the enactment enlisted in the First Schedule and Act of 1950
finds place at Serial No.19. Thus, from 11.2.2016, Act, 1950 stood
repealed.

22. The proceedings, which had commenced in the year 2020 on

the basis of report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur was
registered under Section 104/105 of the Code. The report indicated
that the land purchased by the Trust pursuant to the permission
granted on 07.11.2005, 17.01.2006 and 16.09.2006 was in
contravention to the provisions contained in Section 157-A of Act of
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

16

1950, which is pari materia to Section 89 of the Code. The opening

words lay a restriction upon bhumidhar or asami, belonging to
Schedule Caste, 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. Thus, the mandatory requirement
contained in Section 157-A of Act, 1950 has to be adhered to before
any transaction is entered into between the parties in respect of any
land belonging to members of Scheduled Caste. Explanation to
Section 157-C defines the expression ‘Scheduled Castes’ and
‘Scheduled Tribe’, which means Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes specified in relation to Uttar Pradesh under Articles 341 and
342 of the Constitution.

23. Learned Additional Advocate General had pointed out from the
order impugned the names of various persons such as Laxman Singh,
Bhagwan Das, Rajveer, Mahesh, Chandrawati, Ram Prasad, Ram
Chandra Singh and Banshi Singh, belonging to Scheduled Caste
category and no prior permission was taken from Collector by the
Trust before entering into transaction, as contemplated under Section
157-A of the Act, 1950. The argument of petitioner’s counsel to the
extent that once permission was granted by the State Government on
07.11.2005, the Trust proceeded to purchase the land cannot be
accepted. Furthermore, reliance upon the order of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Rampur and Commissioner, Moradabad dated 17.7.2013
and 07.11.2013 regarding permission being granted by District
Magistrate cannot be accepted as the said orders were quashed by the
Board of Revenue on 14.01.2020 and writ petition filed before this
Court was dismissed on 21.10.2020, wherein following order was
passed :

“Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared to

press this writ petition.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

17

Similar has been the situation on earlier occasions.

I have perused the impugned orders and do not find any
illegality, therein.
Land, which was subject matter of sale deed executed by
a person belonging to the scheduled caste in favour of member
of the general category has been found to be hit by Section 157-
A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having
been executed without having obtained prior approval/
permission for the same.
As a consequence and in view of Section 167 and 166 of
the said Act, the land subject matter of this illegal sale deed has
been ordered to vest in the State free from all encumbrances.
No evidence or order granting permission for executing
the sale deed is filed with the writ petition, apart from the
document which has been discarded by the Courts below for
cogent reasons.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned orders
are perfectly justified and call for no interference.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.”
24. Once the order of Board of Revenue became final and the writ
petition was dismissed, the stand of the petitioner looses ground that
transfer of land was not in contravention to Section 157-A of Act,
1950.

25. The finding recorded by respondent No.3 as to the transfer

made by members of Scheduled Caste has not been denied by the
petitioner-Trust in the writ petition to the extent that they have not
purchased the land from the persons mentioned in the said judgment.
Bare averment that provisions of Section 157-A of Act, 1950 is not
violated will not suffice, as order clearly mentions the name of
members of Scheduled Caste and the area of land, which was
transferred by them. Once such finding has come and the same having
not been assailed in the writ petition, the order passed in proceedings
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

18

under Section 104/105 of Code cannot be interfered and the land has
rightly been vested with the State Government.

26. Now coming to the argument of the petitioner’ counsel as to

compliance of condition laid in permission dated 07.11.2005 and of
year 2006, which is reflected from the report of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate dated 28.4.2009 appears to be not convincing as the
condition laid down in permission granted on 07.11.2005 specifically
provided for construction to be completed within five years.

27. The report of the year 2009 only indicates that construction
work was in progress over 24,000 Sq.Mts. of land. Moreover, no
document was either produced before the authorities, nor placed
before this court to sustantiate that the condition was fulfilled. Finding
recorded by respondent No.3 as to the construction constrution of
‘Mosque’ is also in violation of condition of sanction/permission as
the Trust was required to use land only for educational purpose. The
argument that the campus had residential premises for teaching as
well as non-teaching staff, a ‘Mosque’ was constructed for them
cannot be accepted as it goes against the permission granted by the
state.

28. As Section 154(2) of Act, 1950 clearly empowers the State to

grant permission for transfer of land excess of the prescribed limit in
favour of registered co-operative society or institution established for
charitable purpose, the said permission comes with certain restriction/
condition, which, if violated, the same stands withdrawn.

29. In the present case, permission for transfer of land in excess to

12.50 acres was granted solely for establishing an educational
institution. The establishment of a ‘mosque’ was against the
permission granted on 07.11.2005 thus the Trust violated the
conditions and Condition no.5 clearly provided that in case of
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

19

violation of any of the condition, land excess of 12.50 acres will vest
in the State Government after affording opportunity of hearing.
Neither in the reply before respondent No.3 nor before this court
petitioner-Trust could justify the action for establishing a ‘mosque’
which was in clear violation of the condition laid down in the
permission order dated 07.11.2005.

30. Coming to the next argument which relates to submission of

annual reports and information in regard to the land and construction
to the District Magistrate in the month of April every year, the
petitioner-Trust could not place any document to substantiate that
compliance of Condition No.4 was made. From bare reading of
permission granted on 07.11.2005, it appears that Condition no.2 and
4 are quite inter-related as the intention of the State in granting
permission was clear that the construction was to be made within five
years and the Trust was required to submit annual report regarding
status of purchase of land as well as construction made over it before
the Collector in the month of April.

31. From perusal of reply filed before respondent no.3 as well as

averment in this writ petition nothing has been brought on record to
justify the cause of the petitioner- Trust and compliance made to the
conditions laid down by the State Government while granting
permission. The finding recorded by respondent No.3 that condition
no.4 has been violated holds ground in view of the fact that apart from
report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 28.4.2009, no material has
been brought on record regarding information to the Collector, as
envisaged in the permission granted by the State Government.

32. The purpose and object of granting permission under Section

154(2) of Act, 1950 is that cooperative societies and charitable
institution could acquire land by purchase above the ceiling limit of
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

20

12.50 acres, but this is subject to the restriction imposed by the State
Government so that permission is not misused by the person in favour
of whom the same is granted. The object of imposing condition is to
prevent fraudulent transfer in garb of the permission granted under
Section 154(2) of Act, 1950 and in case it is found that such transfer is
in contravention, the land in excess of the prescribed limit will vest in
the State as held by the Apex Court in case of Kripa Shanker vs.
Director Consolidation 1979 ALJ 693 (SC).

33. The respondent No.3 has recorded finding to the effect that not
only the Trust violated the provisions of Section 157-A of Act, 1950,
condition Nos.2 and 4, but has forcibly encroached upon the land of
number of tenure holders, whose land was adjoining the Trust and
they had filed case under Section 134 of the Code. Furthermore, Chak
Road, which is land of Gaon Sabha and land adjoining the river belt
has also been included. A finding has been recorded that a first
information report had been lodged against the former Cabinet
Minister Mohammad Azam Khan, under Sections 342, 384, 447, 506
IPC for land grabbing.

34. Sri Kazmi while replying to the argument of State, submitted

that 26 first information reports, as alleged in the order impugned, has
been challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.20665 of 2019 wherein this Court on 25.9.2019 had granted
interim protection to the extent that Mohd. Azam Khan and Aley
Hasan Khan shall not be arrested provided both of them cooperate in
the investigation and appear in the concerned police station as and
when required for the purpose of investigation.

35. Coming to the argument raised by the petitioner in regard to

maintainability of the proceedings, it was contended that once the
declaration was made under Section 143 of the Act, 1950, the
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

21

proceedings under the Code could not have been initiated. It is not in
dispute that the Trust had acquired total of 70.005 hectare land which
comprises of 18.074 hectare agricultural and 51.931 hectare non-
agricultural land. Section 143 (2) of Act of 1950 though provides that
upon grant of declaration mentioned in sub-section (1) the provisions
of Chapter-VIII of Act, 1950 shall cease to apply to the bhumidhar
with transferable rights, with respect to such land. Section 81 of Code
is a pari materia to Section 143 of the Act, 1950. However, in the
present case, the revenue authorities proceeded to declare the land
surplus on the ground that transfer was made in contravention to
Section 157-A of Act, 1950. The argument of Sri Kazmi does not hold
ground that once the declaration was made under Section 143, Section
143(2) places an embargo and no proceedings can be initiated under
Section 104/105 of Code, 2006, as the transfer of land had taken place
prior to the declaration made under Section 143, which is hit by
Section 157- A of Act, 1950. Once the transfer was void, subsequent
proceedings under Section 143 would not save the transfer made in
favour of the Trust by members of Scheduled Caste.

36. Moreover, the authorities had proceeded that the Trust had
violated condition nos.2 and 4 by not completing the construction
within the stipulated period and did not submit the statement in regard
to acquisition of land and construction made thereupon annually as
well as construction of ‘mosque’ over the acquired land.

37. The declaration under Section 143 of Act, 1950 will not save
the case of the petitioner- Trust from being hit by provisions of
Section 157-A and the violation of conditions of permission granted
on 07.11.2005. Had it been a simple transfer of land, not hit by
provisions of Section 157-A, then the Trust could have raised the
objections that revenue authorities could not have proceeded once
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

22

declaration was made and was saved by sub-section (2) of Section 143
of Act, 1950.

38. It is a case where large part of land has been purchased as well
as certain part of land belonging to tenure holders and Gaon Sabha has
been encroached upon by a former Cabinet Minister of State for
establishing an educational institution pursuant to an Act which has
come up in the year 2005. The finding has not been assailed by
placing documentary proof that the plots in question were purchased
by the Trust and does not belong to Gaon Sabha or the tenure holders
who have initiated proceedings under Section 134 of the Code.

39. From the order impugned, I find that the revenue authority, after
considering not only the report dated 16.3.2020 but also the reply of
the petitioner, as well as the representation of the State, had in depth
recorded finding as to the violation of law and condition by the Trust
in setting up the educational institution. The order impugned has
rightly been passed in the proceedings under Section 104/105 of Code
and the land except 12.50 acres vest in the State Government.

40. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that
once this Court on 06.8.2021 took cognizance in the matter and
directed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter, no
question arises for relegating the matter under Section 210 of the
Code on the ground of alternative remedy.

41. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record, I find that no case for interference has been made out by the
petitioner-Trust as the transfer of land by the Trust is hit by Section
157-A of Act, 1950 and further the conditions of the permission
granted by the State on 7.11.2005 had been violated, which had
required the institution to strictly follow the same and any
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

23

contravention would lead to the land vesting in the State Government

except 12.5 acres.

42. No interference is required in the order impugned dated

16.01.2021 and report dated 16.03.2020 submitted by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Rampur.

43. Writ petition stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 06.09.2021

Kushal