HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8140 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Nail Pradhan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 4 is dispensed with. 3. The present dispute pertains to the land situated at Khasra No. 24 existing at Khurram Nagar, Ward - Shankar Purwa, District - Lucknow measuring 4140 sq. ft. 4. It has been submitted that the said land was existing in the name of Garibe S/o Fakire in the revenue records and the same was purchased by Smt. Hamida Bano, late wife of the petitioner, by means of a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1985. On the said land the petitioner has built and established an educational school namely, H.B. Public School, Lucknow which is affiliated by the U.P. Board in the year 1995-96. 5. It is submitted that after a lapse of 37 years of registration of the sale deed a complaint was moved by the private respondents alleging that the sale deed was void inasmuch as the land was purchased from a person belonging to scheduled caste and in gross violation of provisions of Section 157A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the same has been purchased by the wife of the petitioner. The said complaint was registered as a suit Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pooja Agarwal, Manish Kumar Srivastava, Phool Chandra Mishra, Shravan Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Noorul Haq .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) No. 3934/23 (State of U.P. Vs. Garibe and others) and proceedings U/S 104/ 105 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated . 6. The said suit was decided by means of order dated 08.06.2023 where it was recorded that notices were issued to the petitioner and a report of the Tehsildar, Sadar dated 07.02.2023 was available on record. It was further taken into consideration that Garibe was a scheduled caste and he had sold the said land by means of a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1985 in favour of wife of the petitioner. In the sale deed though he had made an averment that he is not a member of the scheduled caste but another sale deed was also looked into executed by Garibe S/o Fakire pertaining to sale to one Shiv Kumar S/o Munna Lal, 1400 sq. ft. was sold by him which he had was clearly shown himself to a person belonging to scheduled caste. 7. The trial court had also considered the evidence on record adduced by one Amar Kumar Gautam S/o Late Revti Lal Gautam and also looked into the records of 1359 fasli from which it was abundantly clear that Garibe belonged to scheduled caste and by purchasing the said property the petitioner had clearly violated the provisions of Section 166/167 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and accordingly has directed vesting of the said property to the State Government. 8. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 08.06.2023 has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow. In the said appeal, it was stated that Hamida Bano had died on 18.12.2013. Accordingly the suit proceedings were initiated against a dead person and no opportunity of hearing was given before the trial court. Apart from the above ground, the matter was not contested on merits and accordingly the appellate court found that there was no infirmity in the findings returned by the trial court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 9. Before this Court, the counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as Hamida Bano had died prior to institution of the suit proceedings and the decree has been obtained against a dead person. He further submits that before the WRIC No. 8140 of 2025 2 appellate court this ground has been raised but no finding was returned in this regard. He further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Leelawati Bai Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521 where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further relied upon another Judgment in the case of Amba Bai and others Vs. Gopal and others, AIR 2001 SC 2003 where it has been held that "As the judgment on the second appeal was passed without the knowledge that the appellant had died, the same being a judgment passed again ts the dead person is a nullity." 10. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing and even otherwise the order passed by the trial court is a nullity and therefore prayed for writ petition to be allowed and for setting aside the impugned orders. 11. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that even before the appellate stage no ground was taken by the petitioner justifying the sale deed which clearly was executed with a person who belonging to scheduled caste and was in violation of Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings before the SDM from which it is evident that the petitioner was made as respondent No. 5 and accordingly was duly made a party in the suit proceedings. 12. Considering the rival submission, it is noticed that the petitioner was a party before the SDM, Lucknow in the suit proceedings and merely because of the fact that Hamida Bano had died in 2013 would not be a ground to hold the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by SDM as illegal and arbitrary on the premise that it was passed against a dead person. Once the petitioner who is the legal heir of the deceased Hamida Bano was made as respondent then the suit proceedings were no longer defective and certainly could have continued against the petitioner, accordingly the ground raised by the petitioner in this regard is rejected. 13. Apart from the above, the next question raised by the petitioner is with regard to opportunity of hearing, it has been stated that before the trial court, notices were issued but they were not received by the WRIC No. 8140 of 2025 3 petitioner and therefore they could not participate in the proceedings. In the memo of the appeal, which has been annexed along with the writ petition, there is no averment that the petitioner had in fact not received the notices sent by the trial court. Apart from the above, the allegation against the petitioner was the fact that the sale deed dated 22.04.1985 was executed in violation of the provisions of Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act inasmuch as no approval of the Collector was taken before execution of the said sale deed. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner either in the appeal or in the present writ proceedings. 14. The consequences of Section 157A are also clearly provided in Section 166 and 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act where such transfer is void and the subject matter of transfer shall, with effect from the date of transfer, vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, it is by the operation of the statutory provision, the said sale has been held to be void and the disputed land stands vested in the State Government. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a perusal of Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would indicate that in case the land is used for any other purposes other than agriculture then an application has to be made to the Assistant Collector upon which a declaration is granted by him as per the provision of Section 143(2). It has been further stated that as per Section 331A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 where any issue has been raised with regard to the fact that the land is not used for agricultural purpose then such court shall frame an issue and send the record to the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division for decision on that issue only. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that in the present case the matter be sent to the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division for decision on this aspect of the matter. 16. Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner, this Court has perused the memo of the appeal which was filed by the petitioner before the Commission, Lucknow, and finds that there is no averment indicating that any application U/S 143 was moved before the Assistant Collector for change of the land use. Even in the present writ petition, there is no averment that there was any application for change in WRIC No. 8140 of 2025 4 land use. The perusal of the sale deed would indicate that it was in fact agricultural land which was purchased by the petitioner which sale has been held to be void as per the provisions contained in Section 157A, 166 and 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Even if subsequently the petitioner has constructed a building over the said land and even subsequently the agricultural activity is not being conducted on the said land will be of no consequences as it has to be considered from the date of execution of the sale deed whether the land was agricultural land or being used for any other purposes. 17. This Court does not find any material to support the contention of the petitioner that on the date of sale, the land was being used for any other purpose other than agriculture and accordingly benefit of Section 143 read with Section 331A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would not come to the aid to the petitioner. No other ground has been urged by the petitioner in support of his submissions and accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 18. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application to the State Government considering the fact that school is running on the said premises for the last 37 years and in case any provision exists for settling the matter in favour of the petitioner, the same may be looked into in accordance with law. September 8, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 8140 of 2025 5 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench