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").
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 1st
Class-cum-Sub Divisional
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.
7.
Shri Mukul
Rohtagi,
learned senior
counsel
appearing for
the appellant argued that in view of Section 91 of the
Reorganisation Act, the proceedings
pending before
the Board
of Revenue,
U.P.
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.
8.
Shri Vijay
Hansaria,
learned senior
counsel
appearing for
therespondents argued that the appellant cannot question the
orders passed by the
Board of
Revenue, U.P.
on the
ground of
lack of
jurisdiction because
no such
objection was
raised at
the hearing
of the
revision petitions.
Learned senior counsel further argued that this Court may not interfere
with the
impugned order
because the
land purchased
in the names of
the respondents had already been divided into plots and allotted to
various persons, who are not parties in these cases.
9.
We have considered the respective submissions.
Section 91 of the Reorganisation Act reads thus:
"91. Transfer of pending proceedings.--(1) Every proceeding
pending
immediately before
the appointed
day before
a court
(other than
High Court),
tribunal,
authority or
officer in
any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar
Pradesh shall, if it is a
proceeding relating
exclusively to the
territory,
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.
..............................J.
(G.S. Singhvi)
...............................J.
(Asok Kumar Ganguly)
New Delhi,
April 11, 2011.