9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. This petition arises out of a transaction of sale, which has been annulled by the competent authority invoking the provisions of section 157-AA read with sections 166 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 3. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner that no previous approval had been sought and that an application was moved afterwards on 1.4.2004 seeking permission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Collector did not have the power to pass the impugned order as he is not enjoined with the duty of any such exercise, particularly under section 167 which requires that the Collector shall take appropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous approval employed in sub-section (4) at the best can be construed in favour of the vendor if an application is filed prior to the transaction of sale. The grant of approval or disapproval after the execution of the sale-deed could be subject-matter of consideration as indicated in the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but not in the present case where no such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Court concerned as it was a Court sale and, therefore, in both the transactions involved in the said 2 decisions, the applications had already been moved prior to the transaction of sale. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner or the respondent-vendor did not move any application prior to the transaction and as a matter of fact the application was moved almost after 4 months of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
