Case: SITA RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. BHARAT SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS

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.24. The deed of exchange in the instant case was executed between the parties on 2 nd 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. 3 rd 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 2 nd 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 2 nd 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 Kesho Ram and late N.D. Chaudhary) at the same time, so far as the subject plot which was once transferred by the original tenure holders, namely, Smt. Chando and Sita Ram who are throughout contesting the matter (plot no.2902 area 0.34 decimals) to late N.D. Chaudhary 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 N.D. Chaudhary 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.25. We are of the view that at least late Smt. Chando and Sita Ram, 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 2 nd 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 late Smt. Chando and Sita Ram(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 N.D. Chaudhary dated 24 th January, 1973 which was otherwise not the subject matter to be examined under the provisions of the Act, 1950.26. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that interference in the concurrent finding and the exchange deed being void as the permission from Assistant Collector has not been obtained and in consequence they are entitled for restoration/possession of plot no.2902 (area 0.34 decimals) which was originally sold by registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973 to late N.D. Chaudhary is without substance for the reason that these are two separate transactions which has taken place of the subject plot in question. As regards the rights and interests which were transferred by the present appellants vide registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973 in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary 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 out to us.27. 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 2 nd 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 24 th January, 1973 executed after taking due consideration in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary.28. In our considered view, the conclusions of the High Court in its judgment impugned are unassailable and does not call for our interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. It emerges from the pre amendment (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 3 rd June, 1981) scheme of the 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 Rules, 1952 but after the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 amended w.e.f. 3 rd 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.17. In the instant case, the exchange deed was executed on 2 nd 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. 3 rd June, 1981.18. After the scheme of the Act has been referred to in extenso, it is clear that 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.It is true that at one stage, late Smt. Chando and Sita Ram jointly raised objection in the consolidation proceedings initiated under Section 9A(1) of the Act, 1953 in reference to the registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973 but as we have already observed that the registered sale deed dated 24 th 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 and this fact became clear that so far as the grievance of Smt. Chando and Sita Ram is concerned, after the sale deed was registered and executed on 24 th January, 1973 in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary, the ownership rights with possession stands transferred. It is true that late N.D. Chaudhary 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 24 th January, 1973 and there is no prohibition or restriction to the contrary has been brought to our notice, if any, under the Act 1950.23. At a later stage, late N.D. Chaudhary(father of respondent nos. 10 and 11) and late Kesho Ram(father/grandfather of respondent nos. 1 to 8) who was the tenure holders of plot no. 2683 and 2888 got their plot exchanged by registered exchange deed dated 2 nd March, 1974 which indisputedly was in contravention of Section 161 of the pre-amended Act, 1950 where it was postulated that no exchange shall be made except with the permission of the Assistant Collector. 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.24. The deed of exchange in the instant case was executed between the parties on 2 nd 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. 3 rd 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 2 nd 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 2 nd 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 Kesho Ram and late N.D. Chaudhary) at the same time, so far as the subject plot which was once transferred by the original tenure holders, namely, Smt. Chando and Sita Ram who are throughout contesting the matter (plot no.2902 area 0.34 decimals) to late N.D. Chaudhary 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 N.D. Chaudhary 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.25. We are of the view that at least late Smt. Chando and Sita Ram, 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 2 nd 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 late Smt. Chando and Sita Ram(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 N.D. Chaudhary dated 24 th January, 1973 which was otherwise not the subject matter to be examined under the provisions of the Act, 1950.26. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that interference in the concurrent finding and the exchange deed being void as the permission from Assistant Collector has not been obtained and in consequence they are entitled for restoration/possession of plot no.2902 (area 0.34 decimals) which was originally sold by registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973 to late N.D. Chaudhary is without substance for the reason that these are two separate transactions which has taken place of the subject plot in question. As regards the rights and interests which were transferred by the present appellants vide registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973 in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary 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 out to us.27. 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 2 nd 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 24 th January, 1973 executed after taking due consideration in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary.28. In our considered view, the conclusions of the High Court in its judgment impugned are unassailable and does not call for our interference.To make it further clear that 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 N.D. Chaudhary by late Smt. Chando and Sita Ram in reference to plot no. 2902 ad-measuring 0.34 decimals by the registered sale deed dated 24 th January, 1973.