Section 157 - A of the U.P Zamindari And Land Reforms Act-"157-A. Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes. - (1) Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in sections 153 to 157, no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste shall have the right to transfer any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, except with the previous approval of the Collector : Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Collector in case where the land held in Uttar Pradesh by the transfer on the date of application under this section is less than 1.26 hectares or where the area of land so held in Uttar Pradesh by the transferor on the said date is after such transfer, likely to be reduced to less than 1.26 hectares. (2) The Collector shall, on an application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, make such inquiry as may be prescribed." From a perusal thereof, it would be clear that nowhere does the Section restricts itself to agricultural land. On the contrary, the language used is that no Bhumidhar or Asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste Category shall have the right to transfer any land without the approval of the Collector. In the present case, admittedly, no previous approval for transfer has been granted by the Collector though according to petitioner the lease deed was registered without any objection. In our opinion, once an act has to be done by a specific method, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that because at the time of executing of the lease deed, the said lease deed was registered and that amounts to a transfer granting approval by the Collector under Section 157-A of the Act. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the Collector having not granted approval prior to the execution of the lease deed, the respondents were right in not awarding marks to the petitioner under the head of land and infrastructure. 2015 Allahabad High court[2011] MSKLAWREPORTS

Section 157 - A of the U.P Zamindari And Land Reforms Act-"157-A. Restrictions on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes. - (1) Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in sections 153 to 157, no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste shall have the right to transfer any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, except with the previous approval of the Collector : 
Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Collector in case where the land held in Uttar Pradesh by the transfer on the date of application under this section is less than 1.26 hectares or where the area of land so held in Uttar Pradesh by the transferor on the said date is after such transfer, likely to be reduced to less than 1.26 hectares. 
(2) The Collector shall, on an application made in that behalf in the prescribed manner, make such inquiry as may be prescribed." 
From a perusal thereof, it would be clear that nowhere does the Section restricts itself to agricultural land. On the contrary, the language used is that no Bhumidhar or Asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste Category shall have the right to transfer any land without the approval of the Collector. 
In the present case, admittedly, no previous approval for transfer has been granted by the Collector though according to petitioner the lease deed was registered without any objection. 
In our opinion, once an act has to be done by a specific method, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that because at the time of executing of the lease deed, the said lease deed was registered and that amounts to a transfer granting approval by the Collector under Section 157-A of the Act. 
We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the Collector having not granted approval prior to the execution of the lease deed, the respondents were right in not awarding marks to the petitioner under the head of land and infrastructure. 2015 Allahabad High court[2011] MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS