IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
J U D G M E N T
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Board of Revenue, U.P. could hear and decide the revisions filed by the appellant after creation of the State of Uttranchal (renamed as Uttrakhand) by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short "the Reorganisation Act").
tenure holders in the name of Golden Forest India Limited and its sister
Golden Agro Forest
Limited and Golden Forest Distributors Limited.
Tehsildar, Dehradun, submitted report
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "the
be declared to have vested in the State Government. The
Assistant Collector issued
notice to the respondents, gave them opportunity of hearing and
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.
The respondents challenged the aforesaid order by filing
revisions, which were
the Board of Revenue,
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.
the conclusion recorded by the Board of Revenue, U.P. on the
legality of the disputed transaction was correct.
the appellant argued that in view of Section 91 of the
Reorganisation Act, the proceedings
stood transferred to the newly created State
of Uttranchal and, as such, it did not have the jurisdiction to
decide the revisions filed by the respondents. Learned senior counsel
pointed out that the Reorganisation Act had come into force w.e.f.
09.11.2000 and, therefore, the Board of Revenue, U.P. could not have
decided the revisions on 24.11.2000.
therespondents argued that the appellant cannot question the
orders passed by the
Learned senior counsel further argued that this Court may not interfere
in the names of
the respondents had already been divided into plots and allotted to
various persons, who are not parties in these cases.
We have considered the respective submissions.
Section 91 of the Reorganisation Act reads thus:
"91. Transfer of pending proceedings.--(1) Every proceeding
any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar
Pradesh shall, if it is a
exclusively to the
which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State,
stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or
officer of that State.
(2) If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1) it shall be referred to the High Court at Allahabad and the decision of that High Court shall be final.
(3) In this section--
(a)"proceeding" includes any suit, case or appeal; and
(b)"corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer" in the State of Uttaranchal means--
(ii) in case of doubt, such court, tribunal, authority, or officer in that State, as may be determined after the appointed day by the Government of that State or the Central Government, as the case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer."
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 overlooked 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.
11. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order as also the order passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. are set aside and it is declared that the revisions filed by the respondents stood transferred to the Board of Revenue, State of Uttranchal. The Board of Revenue, U.P. is directed to transmit the record of the revision petitions to the Board of Revenue of the State of Uttrakhand which shall decide the revision petitions afresh. If there is no Board of Revenue in the State of Uttrakhand then the record shall be transferred to the corresponding adjudicating authority. The respondents shall furnish the list of allottees of plots along with their latest addresses to the Board of Revenue, Uttrakhand or any other competent adjudicating authority within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the allottees be impleaded as parties to the pending revisions and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law after hearing all the parties.
(Asok Kumar Ganguly)
April 11, 2011.