The Single Judge bench comprising Justice Sri Rajnish Kumar, decreed “ This court is of the considered view that the transfer of an agricultural land cannot be made by a mode, except as provided under law, which may be by way of sale, gift etc.” in Ram Sunder And Another Vs. Joint Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And 2 Others [CONSOLIDATION No. – 2839 of 1980] on 21st of June at the High Court of Allahabad.
The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner claims the title of the property and alleges that the respondent 3 fraudulently added the name on the revenue records of the property. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Bhola @ Sheetal were the same person upon whose death the property transferred to his widow. Upon the death of the widow, the property returns to the husband’s brother and then passes on to his sons. However, the counsel for the respondent contended that Bhola and Sheetal were two different people and the title of the property lies with him respectfully. This dispute could not be reconciled before the Assistant consolidation officer and was thus forwarded to the consolidation officer who held that the petitioner was the rightful heir to the property. Aggrieved by this, the respondent raised a fresh plea before the settlement officer who reversed the order. The petitioner further went for a revision before the joint director of consolidation who dismissed it. Thus, a writ petition was filed before the high court.
The learned court after listening to the submissions of both the counsels adjudged that Bhola and Sheetal were not the same person and thus, the petitioner with the motive of gaining the land have included Sheetal in his family fraudulently. To deal with the issue whether the respondent 3 could have the title of property without transfer nor succession, the court decreed, “a bhumidhar with transferable rights can transfer his/her interest in the land subject to conditions in the Act of 1950, but it can be only in accordance with law i.e. the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration Act. No other mode of transfer has been provided in the Act of 1950. Section 166 of the Act of 1950 provides that any transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be void” relying on Umesh Chand and Others Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others [2002(2) AWC 932] where, “No right or interest can pass in immovable property in a manner contrary to provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act”. Since there was no transfer/succession of the property, the alleged transfer to the respondent is not valid.
The petition was partly allowed by quashing both the orders. However, the case is transferred to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide in light of the abovementioned observations.