Nazul-Government of U.P,Collector and Sub Registrar

Amit Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 21 May, 2003

(2003) 2 UPLBEC 1733

------------------ land in question measuring 160 acres

--------------Special Secretary, U.P. Government issued letter dated 19.1.2001 to the District Magistrates Varanasi for cancelling the free hold proceedings and accordingly, the District Magistrate Varanasi vide order dated 27.7.2001 has cancelled the same.

--------------subsequently by notice dated 21.3.2001, petitioner was informed that the land does not vest in the State of U.P., and hence the proceedings for cancellation of the deed dated 2.4.98 have been initiated and petitioner can file objection.

--------------The Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad requested the District Magistrate, Varanasi to instruct the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of such transaction in order to safeguard the interest of the Government of India in the defence land. A true copy of the letter dated 17.11.1997 has been annexed as Annexure-CA-7 to the counter-affidavit.

------------ Granting the power of management does not, in our opinion, amounts to transfer of title to the land, which, in our opinion, continues to vest in Government of India. Thus, there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.                           

Bench: M Katju, R Tripathi

Allahabad High Court

2. It is alleged in Paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner's father was the lessee of Property No. S-17/317-B, Nadesar, Varanasi. In respect of which the Municipal Board, Varanasi executed a lease deed on 17.7.1957, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This lease was granted in favour of the petitioner's father for a period of 30 years and hence it was to expire on 29th March, 1987. The petitioner's father gave an application to the Administrator Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi (Now Nagar Nigam) on 24.3.87, vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition praying for extension of the lease period for a period of 99 years. However, it is alleged that no action was taken on this application.

3. By Notification dated 23.5.1992, issued by the State Government vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the Nazul Policy of the State Government was declared.

4-------------and deposited Rs. 16,000 and a free hold deed was executed in his favour on 2.5.98 vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition.------------- In Paragraph 22 of the petition it is stated that subsequently by notice dated 21.3.2001, petitioner was informed that the land does not vest in the State of U.P., and hence the proceedings for cancellation of the deed dated 2.4.98 have been initiated and petitioner can file objection.

5-. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. It is stated in Paragraph 6 of the same that only management of the plots measuring 160 acres including the land in question was entrusted to the Municipal Board, Benaras (now known as Nagar Nigam, Varanasi). The Commissioner, Benaras Division vide letter dated 11.5.1898 addressed to the Chairman, Municipal Board. Benaras informed that the area transferred will be considered intra-municipal Nazul of which the usufruct has been transferred to the Municipality. It was stated in that letter that 3/4 of the income of such Nazul land would go to the Municipality or District Board, and 1/4 income would go to the Provincial Revenue. As such it is alleged that no title had been transferred by the Union of India in favour of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi.------------------- The Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Varanasi bringing to his notice that defence land in Nadesar area, Varanasi Cantonment is being sold and the sale transaction are being registered by the Sub-Registrar without making any reference to the Cantonment Board, Varani.si or Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad. He brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, Varanasi that no intimation about the same was received in his office. He requested the District Magistrate, Varanasi to instruct the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of such transaction in order to safeguard the interest of the Government of India in the defence land. A true copy of the letter dated 17.11.1997 has been annexed as Annexure-CA-7 to the counter-affidavit.

6. The Government Executive Officer, Varanasi sent letter dated 28.2.1998 and letter dated 21.12.1998 to the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Head Quarters, Central Command, Lucknow bringing the entire facts to his notice that the aforesaid land which was given to the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi for management and the said authority was converting the aforesaid land into free hold. The Cantonment Executive Officer, Varanasi sought guidance from the Principal Director, Defence Estate as to whether the order of the U.P. Government was binding on the Cantonment Board. By another letter dated 21.12.1998 the Cantonment Executive Officer, Varanasi brought to the notice of the Principal Director, Defence Estates that the aforesaid land measuring 160 acres was given to the Municipal Board by the Government of India in the year 1896 for management on payment of certain compensation for the loss of revenue.

7. In Paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Principal Director, Defence Estate wrote a letter to the Cantonment Executive Officer, Varanasi that the land was transferred for the management of the Beneras Cantonment to the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi on annual payment of Rs. 1657/6 vide Annexure-CA-9 to the counter-affidavit. The Cantonment Board, Varanasi then resolved that permanent transfer of the land to the Municipal Corporation be offered on payment of market value to the Defence Ministry and on unwillingness to do so to pay the transfer value, vide Annexure-CA-10 to the counter-affidavit. The Cantonment Board, Varanasi communicated about the resolution to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi vide letter dated 24.7.1999 Annexure-CA-11 to the counter-affidavit. In Paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that objection having been raised by the Cantonment Board, Varanasi and the Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad about the conversion of land to free hold, the matter was taken up with the State Government as a consequence of which the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi wrote a letter dated 3.1.2001 and another letter dated 9.1.2001 to the District Magistrate, Varanasi bringing the entire facts to the notice of the District Magistrate and requesting for cancellation of proceedings for conversion of land to free hold. True copies of the said letters are Annexure-CA-12 to the counter-affidavit.

8. In Paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in the relevant Khatauni the land in question measuring 160 acres contains entry to the effect that the ownership of the land is of the Government of India vide Annexure-CA-13 to the counter-affidavit. Since the entire matter was brought to the notice of the State Government the Special Secretary, U.P. Government issued letter dated 19.1.2001 to the District Magistrates Varanasi for cancelling the free hold proceedings and accordingly, the District Magistrate Varanasi vide order dated 27.7.2001 has cancelled the same. It is alleged in Paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit that the respondent 1 to 6 had no right at all to transfer the land or to convert the same into free hold since the ownership of the land vests in the Government of India, Defence Ministry. The Government of India is the owner of the land and hence the State Government or the District Magistrate, Varanasi has no right to sell the land or allow it to be converted into free hold. Only the management of the land was entrusted to the Municipal Board, Varanasi but the Municipal Board was no authorized to allow people to erect houses or to execute lease deed or to convert the land into free hold. The Nagar Nigam, Varanasi acted beyond its authority in passing the transfer orders or granting free hold rights. The lease deed dated 17.7.1957 confers no title or interest in favour of the petitioner.

10. A careful perusal of the report of the District Magistrate, Varanasi dated 22/24 May, 1971, Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit shows that there was some litigation about the title to the said land between the Cantonment Board and Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi and ultimately that dispute was decided by the order of the Commissioner, Varanasi by order dated 24.1.1957, by which he rejected the claim of the Nagar Mahapalika of title over the land. In the same order it has been held that no appeal was filed against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner and this proves the title of the Government of India over the said land.

11. Very relevant is the letter of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi which is Annexure-CA-12 to the counter-affidavit, admitting that the property never belonged to the State Government and hence the entire proceedings treating it to be Nazul land were illegal and without jurisdiction. In this letter the entire matter has been discussed in great detail. In the Khatauni copy of which is Annexure-CA-13 to the counter-affidavit it is stated that the property belongs to the Union of India.

13. Granting the power of management does not, in our opinion, amounts to transfer of title to the land, which, in our opinion, continues to vest in Government of India. Thus, there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.