Keshav Ram (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 4. soc also held that exchange was bad for want of permission under section 161 of u.s.u. khan, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.original respondent nos. 4 and 5 smt. chando and sita ram were tenure holders of plot no. 2902. they sold the said plot on 24.1.1973 to sri n.d. chaudhary father of respondent nos. 6 and 7 sunil kumar and anil kumar.2. petitioner was tenure holder of plot nos. 2863 and 2888. through registered deed dated 2.3.1974, petitioner and sri n.d. chaudhary exchanged their plots. as a result of the said deed plot no. 2902, which had been purchased by sri n.d. chaudhary was given to the petitioner and petitioner's plot nos. 2863 and 2888 were given to sri n.d. chaudhary.3. in consolidation proceedings, petitioner filed application that plot no. 2902 be recorded in his name as the same had been purchased by sri n.d. chaudhary and thereafter given by sri n.d. chaudhary to the petitioner in exchange. sri n.d. chaudhary filed application fully supporting the case of the petitioner. smt. chando raised certain objections regarding validity of the sale deed dated 24.1.1973. she also questioned the exchange before consolidation officer, mathura. the matter was registered as case no. 91/5559/714 (or case no. 1559/764) and was decided on 29.8.1980. the consolidation officer held that the sale deed executed was quite genuine and was in fact executed by chando and sita ram. in respect of exchange, consolidation officer held that it was not done in accordance with section 161 of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act and it was further held that as sri n.d. chaudhary had not filed any objection hence, name of respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall continue. against order dated 29.8.1980 appeal no. 291/39 was filed. s.o.c. recorded a finding that the sale deed bore thumb impression of smt. chando and in that regard reliance was placed upon the report of handwriting expert ashok kashyap. his report and evidences was fully accepted by the s.o.c. s.o.c. also recorded that smt. chando admitted that she had received rs. 5,000 for the land which she sold; it is also mentioned in the judgment of s.o.c. that smt. chando admitted that she affixed her thumb impression in the office of sub-registrar and received rs. 5,000 there and that she had sold one acre of land (in fact the sale deed was only of 0.34 acres, i.e., 1/3 of an acre). strangely enough even thereafter soc held that the evidence which was adduced was not sufficient to prove the sale deed. soc further held that the witness could not prove the execution of the sale deed and came to the conclusion that as the witness did not recognise the seller and had not seen the land hence the sale deed was not proved.4. soc also held that exchange was bad for want of permission under section 161 of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act. accordingly, appeal was dismissed on 18.1.1982. thereafter petitioner filed revision no. 89/227. respondent nos. 6 and 7 sons of sri n.d. chaudhary also filed revision no. 476 of 1984. deputy director of consolidation, agra camp at mathura dismissed both the revisions through common judgment dated 19.7.1984. ddc did not say anything regarding validity or invalidity of the sale deed. impliedly ddc accepted that the sale deed was genuine and valid.5. the view of soc regarding genuineness of the sale deed is patently erroneous in law. signatures of the executant smt. chando on the sale deed were found to be proved by the soc. she had also admitted that she had gone to the office of sub-registrar, affixed her thumb impression and received rs. 5,000 (as sale consideration) there. this completely proved the sale deed. smt. chando did not raise any objection that the sale deed was void or voidable due to fraud misrepresentation or undue influence.6. as far as the question of filing objection by sri n.d. chaudhary is concerned, all the courts below held that he had not filed objections hence no relief could be granted to him. he was fully supporting the exchange and asserting that he had actually purchased the property from smt. chando. this was sufficient.7. the most important thing to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether exchange of agricultural land can take place through registered deed without following the procedure under section 161 of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act. section 161 of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act, is quoted below. (relevant portion)a bhumidhar may exchange with any other bhumidhar land held by him provided that no exchange shall be made except with the permission of an assistant collector who shall refuse permission if the difference between the rental value of land given in exchange and of land received in exchange calculated at hereditary rates is more than 10 per cent of the lower rental value.8. under section 166, it is provided that every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the act shall be void. under section 167 consequences in respect of transfer which is void by virtue of section 166 are provided. the consequences are that the subject matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer be deemed to have vested in the state government.9. it was only the state government which could apply for cancellation of the exchange effected through registered deed without permission of s.d.o. and/or claim the property. in this regard no other party has got any right. even transferor cannot claim right in the land if the transfer is void under any of the provisions of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act. accordingly the finding that land should be continued to be recorded in the name of smt. chando and sita ram is erroneous in law.10. accordingly, writ petition is allowed. all the impugned orders are set aside.11. let the land comprised in plot no. 2902 be recorded in the name of the petitioner. however, it is clarified that this order will not affect the right of the state, if any. in case state initiates some proceeding in respect of exchange then all possible pleas in defence shall be available to the petitioner and respondent nos. 6 and 7.writ petition is accordingly allowed.