Case: State Of Uttaranchal Vs. M/S. Golden Forest Co. (P) Ltd

3. One Sanjay Ghai had purchased bhumidhari land from various tenure holders in the name of Golden Forest India Limited and its sister concerns, namely, Indian Peace Foundation Trust, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, Golden Forest India Limited, Golden Agro Forest Limited and Golden Forest Distributors Limited. Tehsildar, Dehradun, submitted report dated 12.08.1997 to Assistant Collector 1stDivisional Magistrate (for short "the Assistant Collector") with the finding that the purchases made in the name of the respondents were violative of the restriction contained in Section 154 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"). He suggested that action may be initiated against them under Sections 166/167 of the Act and land in excess of the ceiling may be declared to have vested in the State Government. The Assistant Collector issued notice to the respondents, gave them opportunity of hearing and passed order dated 21.08.1997 whereby he held that the disputed transactions were ultra vires the provisions contained in Section 154(1) of the Act and forwarded the matter to Collector, Dehradun for taking action under Section 167(2) of the Act.4. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order by filing revisions, which were allowed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. vide order dated 24.11.2000 by observing that in terms of Section 154(1) of the Act each major person or company is entitled to purchase 12.5 acres land and the purchases made in the names of different companies cannot be clubbed for deciding the issue relating to violation of that section.5. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the Board of Revenue in Writ Petition No. 81 (M/S) of 2000. The State of Uttranchal also challenged that order in Writ Petition Nos. 2046 (M/S)2049(M/S) and 2051(M/S)2053(M/S) of 2001 on several grounds including the one that after coming into force of the Reorganisation Act, the Board of Revenue, U.P. did not have the jurisdiction to deal with and decide the revisions filed by the respondents.6. The Learned Single Judge did not deal with the issue of jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petitions by observing that the conclusion recorded by the Board of Revenue, U.P. on the legality of the disputed transaction was correct.

Reasoning:
10. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that every proceeding pending before a Court, Tribunal, Authority or Officer in any area which fell within the State of U.P. on 09.11.2000 stood automatically transferred to the corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority or Officer of the State of Uttranchal (now Uttrakhand). Therefore, the revisions which were pending before the Board of Revenue, U.P. on 9.11.2000 stood transferred to the State of Uttranchal and, as such, the same could not have been decided by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge over looked the fatal flaw in the order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. and pronounced upon the legality of the purchases made in the names of the respondents.