IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS._3195__________OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 11741 OF 2006)

State of Uttaranchal ……Appellant

VERSUS

M/S Golden Forest Co. (P) Ltd.             …….Respondents

WITH  SLP (C) NOS. 16476, 16477, 16478,

16481, 16482, 16483 and 16484 OF 2006

J U D G M E N T  

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals  

is  whether  the  Board  of  Revenue,  U.P.  could  hear  and  decide  the  

revisions filed by the appellant after creation of the State of Uttranchal  

(renamed as Uttrakhand) by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000  

(for short “the Reorganisation Act”).

3. One Sanjay Ghai had  purchased bhumidhari  land from various  

tenure holders in the name of Golden Forest India Limited and its sister  

concerns,  namely,  Indian  Peace  Foundation  Trust,  Mani  Majra,

Chandigarh, Golden Forest India Limited, Golden Agro Forest Limited  

and Golden Forest Distributors Limited.  Tehsildar, Dehradun, submitted  

report  dated  12.08.1997  to  Assistant  Collector  1st Class-cum-Sub  

Divisional  Magistrate  (for  short  “the  Assistant  Collector”)  with  the  

finding that  the purchases  made in the  name of the  respondents  were  

violative  of  the  restriction  contained  in  Section  154  (1)  of  the  Uttar  

Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “the  

Act”).   He suggested that  action may be  initiated  against  them under  

Sections 166/167 of the Act and land in excess of the ceiling may be  

declared to have vested in the State Government. The  Assistant Collector  

issued  notice to the respondents, gave them opportunity of hearing and  

passed  order  dated  21.08.1997  whereby  he  held  that  the  disputed  

transactions were  ultra vires the provisions contained in Section 154(1)  

of the Act and  forwarded the matter to Collector, Dehradun for taking  

action under Section 167(2) of the Act.

4. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order by filing revisions,  

which were allowed by the Board of Revenue, U.P.  vide  order dated  

24.11.2000 by observing that in terms of Section 154(1) of the Act each  

major person or company is entitled to purchase 12.5 acres land and the  

2

purchases made in the names of different companies cannot be clubbed  

for deciding the issue relating to violation of that section

5.  The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the Board of  

Revenue in Writ Petition No. 81 (M/S) of 2000.  The State of Uttranchal  

also challenged that order in Writ Petition Nos. 2046 (M/S) -2049(M/S)  

and 2051(M/S) - 2053(M/S) of 2001 on several grounds including the  

one that  after coming into force of the Reorganisation Act, the Board of  

Revenue, U.P. did not have the jurisdiction to deal with and decide the  

revisions filed by the respondents.  

6.  The  Learned  Single  Judge  did  not  deal  with  the  issue  of  

jurisdiction  and  dismissed  the  writ  petitions  by  observing  that  the  

conclusion recorded by the Board of Revenue, U.P. on the legality of the  

disputed transaction was correct.

7. Shri  Mukul  Rohtagi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant argued that in view of Section 91 of the Reorganisation Act, the  

proceedings  pending  before  the  Board  of  Revenue,  U.P.   stood  

transferred to the newly created State  of Uttranchal and, as such, it did  

not have the jurisdiction to decide the revisions filed by the respondents.  

3

Learned senior counsel pointed out that the Reorganisation Act had come  

into force w.e.f. 09.11.2000 and, therefore, the Board of Revenue, U.P.  

could not have decided the revisions on 24.11.2000.

8. Shri  Vijay  Hansaria,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents argued that the appellant cannot question the orders passed  

by  the  Board  of  Revenue,  U.P.  on  the  ground of  lack  of  jurisdiction  

because  no  such  objection  was  raised  at  the  hearing  of  the  revision  

petitions.  Learned senior counsel further argued that this Court may not  

interfere  with  the  impugned  order  because  the  land  purchased  in  the  

names of the respondents had already been divided into plots and allotted  

to various persons, who are not parties in these cases.

9. We have considered the respective submissions.  Section 91 of the  

Reorganisation Act reads thus:

“91. Transfer of pending proceedings.—(1) Every proceeding  pending immediately before the appointed day before a court  (other  than  High Court),  tribunal,  authority  or  officer  in  any  area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh  shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory,  which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State,  stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority  or officer of that State.

(2)If  any  question  arises  as  to  whether  any  proceeding  should  stand transferred  under  sub-section  (1)  it  shall  be  referred to the High Court at Allahabad and the decision of that  High Court shall be final. (3) In this section—

4

(a)"proceeding" includes any suit, case or appeal; and (b)"corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer" in the State  of Uttaranchal means— (i)  the  court,  tribunal,  authority  or  officer  in  which,  or  before  whom, the proceeding would have laid if it had been instituted  after the appointed day; or

(ii) in case of doubt, such court, tribunal, authority, or officer in  that State, as may be determined after the appointed day by the  Government of  that  State  or  the  Central  Government,  as  the  case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of  the  existing  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  to  be  the  corresponding  court, tribunal, authority or officer.”

10. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced provision  

makes it clear that every proceeding pending before a Court, Tribunal,  

Authority or Officer in any area which fell within the State of U.P. on  

09.11.2000 stood automatically transferred to the corresponding Court,  

Tribunal,  Authority  or  Officer  of  the  State  of  Uttranchal  (now  

Uttrakhand).   Therefore,  the  revisions  which were  pending before  the  

Board of Revenue, U.P. on 9.11.2000 stood transferred to the State of  

Uttranchal and, as such, the same could not have been decided by the  

Board of Revenue, U.P.  Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge over  

looked the fatal  flaw in the order  of the Board of Revenue,  U.P. and  

pronounced upon the legality of the purchases made in the names of the  

respondents.  

5

11. In the result, the appeals are allowed.  The impugned order as also  

the order passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P.  are set aside and it is  

declared that the revisions filed by the respondents stood transferred to  

the Board of Revenue, State of Uttranchal.  The Board of Revenue, U.P.  

is directed to transmit the record of the revision petitions to the Board of  

Revenue  of  the  State  of  Uttrakhand  which  shall  decide  the  revision  

petitions  afresh.   If  there  is  no  Board  of  Revenue  in  the  State  of  

Uttrakhand  then  the  record  shall  be  transferred  to  the  corresponding  

adjudicating authority.  The respondents shall furnish the list of allottees  

of  plots  along  with  their  latest  addresses  to  the  Board  of  Revenue,  

Uttrakhand or any other competent adjudicating authority within a period  

of  four  weeks  from  today.  Thereafter,  the  allottees  be  impleaded  as  

parties  to  the  pending  revisions  and  appropriate  order  be  passed  in  

accordance with law after hearing all the parties.

       .………………………..J. (G.S. Singhvi)

………………………….J.       (Asok Kumar Ganguly)

New Delhi, April 11, 2011.

6