IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1686 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 26377 of 1999) Mangla ……………...Petitioner. Versus Additional Commissioner (Admin), Kumaon Division, Nainital and another. ………….Respondents. Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26.10.1993 and 23.6.1999 contained as Annexures No. III and V to the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 125/1 Area 0.676 hectares under Section 27 (3) of Ceiling Act by the Additional Collector of Nainital on 30.10.1984 as he was landless agricultural labourer. Petitioner has alleged that after getting the Patta, he became the Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and acquired possession of the land in question and has been continuing in possession since 30.10.1984 and growing crops thereon. 3. According to the petitioner, after enforcement of U.P. Act No. 19 of 1995 w.e.f. 14.1.1995, petitioner being in possession for more than 10 years on 14.1.1995, he 2 became Bhumidhar with transferable rights as per Section 131 (B) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and is now as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. 4. The Naib Tehsildar submitted a report to the Sub Divisional Officer against the petitioner, who by his report dated 24.6.1998 moved the Commissioner to proceed under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act to cancel the Patta. The Commissioner registered a Case under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act bearing Case No. 64/26/97-98 and issued notice to the petitioner, but, according to the petitioner, the same was never served upon him. Thereafter, the case was transferred to respondent no. 1 / Additional Commissioner (Administration), who vide order dated 26.10.1998 cancelled the Patta relying on the report of the Naib Tehsildar. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the order dated 26.10.1998, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. 5. A perusal of the Khasra (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) issued on 18.6.1999 shows that the petitioner is in continuous possession of the Patta Plot No. 125/1 area 0.676 from the date of allotment of lease in his favour. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 131-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act , which reads as under: “131-B. Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to become bhumidhar with transferable rights after ten years.—(1) Every person who was a bhumhdar with non- transferable rights immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 3 Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and had been such bhumidhar for a period of ten years or more, shall become a bhumidhar with transferable rights on such commencement. (2) Every person who is a bhumidhar with non- transferable rights on the commencement referred to in sub-section (1), or becomes a bhumidhar with non- transferable rights after such commencement, shall become bhumidhar with transferable rights on the expiry of period of ten years from his becoming a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, if a person, after becoming a bhumidhar with transferable rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), transfers the land by way of sale, he shall become ineligible for a lease of any land vested in Gaon Sabha or the State Govenrment or of surplus land as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.” 7. From the Khasra, it is evident that the petitioner is in continuous possession of the lease for more than 10 years, therefore, due to coming into force of U.P. Act No. 19 of 1995 w.e.f. 14.1.1995, the petitioner has become a bhumidhar with transferable rights as per Section 131-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as quoted above. 8. As discussed above, since the petitioner had become Bhumidhar with transferable rights, therefore, Patta (lease) granted in his favour could not have been rejected. Therefore, the orders impugned dated 26.10.1998 and 23.6.1999 are quashed. 9. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 8.8.2008 Rathour