High Courts(1999) 12 AHC CK 0083

Nanhey Khan vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 December 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Janam Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Revision No. 23 of 1995-96

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 366 words

Ram Janam Singh, Member.

1.

This revision has been filed by Nanhey Khan and others against the judgment dated 91095 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut.

2.

The revisionist Shafi Mohd got a saledeed executed in his favour in respect of an area of 1.1 5. 0 from plot No. 205 total area of which is 6.7. 12. Since the area purchased is less than 3. 125 acres hence it is hit by Section 168A of the UPZA and LR Act. The learned trial Court called for a report from the Tehsil. The allegation was certified that the area which has been purchased by the revisionist is less than the prescribed limits, hence it is hit by the provisions of Section 168A of the Act. The learned trial Court ordered that the land in dispute has vested in the State under Section 167 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order revisionist preferred a revision before the Commissioner''s Court which too was dismissed on the same grounds. Hence, this second revision.

3.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

4.

I agree with the observations made by the Courts below that an agreement to sale is not a saledeed. Unless the land is duly transferred by way of executing the same in favour of purchaser for some consideration, no rights could be given on the basis of that agreement to sale. The sale deed executed in favour of Shafi Mohd. who subsequently died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were substituted. The area was less than 3.125 acres. The total area purchased is 1.15.O. The saledeed is hit by the provisions of Sect ion 168A of the Act or 157 of the Act then such a sale is voidabinitio and the land which has been purchased automatically gets vested in the state under Section 167 of the Act. It is not a case of Mend Milan or adjoining field belonging to the revisionist hence the finding given by the Courts below do not suffer from any material or jurisdictional error which needs further investigation.

5.

Revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.