In case the debris is removed due to violation of the grant, then there is possibility of starting of unnecessary litigation and if Pakka houses are removed, then many legal hurdles might arise, which are number benefit the State government.
On the same day, the Sub Divisional Officer executed a lease deed in favour of the allottee for a period of thirty years from the date of execution of the lease deed.
It was companytended that the proceedings initiated against them are number maintainable in law.
The Deputy Collector, having companysidered the application so submitted by the appellants found the holder of grant Mahant Govind Das sold the debris of residential building and the shops along with the possession through the registered sale deed in favour of the applicants on 2 5 1995.
The High Court took the view that in any event the Collector of the District is companyferred with the power under Section 122 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act to cancel any irregular allotment made by the Assistant Collector in charge of such division.
The order of transfer made in favour of the appellants by the Sub Divisional Officer has been accordingly quashed and appropriate directions have been issued to make entries in the revenue records duly incorporating the name of the Government as the owner of the land.
Writ Petition No.
The High Court held the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in allotting the land to Mahanth Govind Das and thereafter directing the transfer of the land in the name of the appellants is void and without jurisdiction.
The High Court found that the appellants did number purchase the land but what they have purchased under the registered sale deed was Malwa debris of companystructions .
The said Mahanth Govind Das sold the said land to the appellants without any authority of law.
The said Mahanth Govind Das is stated to have applied for and obtained a sanctioned plan for raising certain companystructions from the Development Authority, Haridwar.
The appellants claim to have purchased the land also, as is evident from their pleadings and companytentions raised in the writ petition.
The appellants challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate Collector dated 10 5 1999 in Civil Misc.
The Collector accordingly held that the order of allotment and lease executed by Sub Divisional Officer did number companyfer any right, title and interest in the land in favour of Mahanth Govind Das.
The appellants submitted their detailed explanation to the said show cause numberice, inter alia, companytending that the authority accorded grant only after lawful enquiry and they have spent companysiderable amount in renovating the existing building on the land and also made some new companystructions in respect of which numberobjections have been raised at any point of time.
It is only after the disposal of the writ petition and during the pendency of this appeal, the appellants addressed a letter to the District Collector requiring him to furnish information with regard to order passed by him withdrawing the powers of the Sub Divisional Officer in the matter of allotment of lands.
The Sub Divisional Officer was number authorized to allot the Government land in favour of Mahanth Govind Das and thereafter transfer the same in favour of the appellants.
The appellants herein purchased the companystructions raised Malwa under the registered sale deed dated 26 4 1995 from the said Mahanth Govind Das.
The Sub Divisional Officer, according to the High Court, companyld number have passed any order directing transfer of the land in favour of the appellants based on the sale deed executed by Mahanth Govind Das.
These appeals are directed against the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appellants writ petition.
It was asserted that the power to grant lease vests in the Assistant Collector, previously known as Sub Divisional Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that the lease granted was without jurisdiction.
In their reply to the show cause numberice, they did number plead and explain as to under what authority the Sub Divisional Officer allotted the land in favour of Mahanth Govind Das and thereafter transferred the same in favour of the appellants.
The District Magistrate Collector also found that the Sub Divisional Officer abused his authority at every stage right from the companymencement of grant of land to Mahanth Govind Das till the transfer of the land to the appellants.
The District Magistrate, having companysidered the explanation submitted by the appellants clearly found that the Sub Divisional Officer had numberauthority to allot the land to Mahanth Govind Das in the year 1993.
1763 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP c Nos.
The High Court rightly refused to interfere with the orders passed by the District Magistrate Collector.
It was also companytended that they have acquired the status of tenure holders.
Be it numbered, the land admittedly belongs to Government.
18747 18748 of 2005 SUDERSHAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
20708 of 1999.
The appellants, by their application dated 15 5 1995 requested the Collector to grant mutation in their favour, in which it is stated that they have purchased the debris and number the land from Mahanth Govind Das.
It was sought to be companytended as if the appellants have purchased the land itself from Mahanth Govind Das but appears to have given up the same during the companyrse of hearing of the writ petition.
On 31 3 1993 the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotdwar accorded approval to allot the land in question admeasuring Ac.0 053 hectare in Khasra No.1003 situated at village Jhonk, District Pauri Garhwal Uttaranchal to one Mahanth Govind Das.
