The has ruled that the burden of proving of land declared surplus under the rests squarely on the State, and where the State fails to discharge that burden, the landholder is entitled to the benefit of the . The ruling directly benefits litigants like the petioner in this case, Munna Lal, whose family land in Varanasi was the subject of long-dormant ceiling proceedings.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan allowed a writ petion filed by Munna Lal, the grandson of the original landholder Ram Nihor, and held that the entire ceiling case aginst his grandfather stand . The court also directed the District Magistrate to expunge revenue entries made in favour of the State and restore the records as they stood prior to September 2021.
Procedural Irregularities Deprive State of Valid Possession
The case concrned Arazi No. 26/1 M in Vilage Hasanpur and several plots in Vilage Singhpur, Pargana Shivpur, Varanasi, totaling 8,834.60 sq m. The origina landholder Ram Nihor had filed a ceiling return under , and an order under Section 8(4) was passed on declaring the land as excess vacant. Notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) followed, and the State claimed that possession was hand over to the on .
However, the court found a striking irregulartiy: the order under Section 8(4) datd
actuay preceded the notice under Section 8(3) which was issued on
.
"Thus, it is evident that the order dated
under Section 8(4) precedes the notice dated
under
and as such has been passed without isuing any proper notice to the origina land holder, Ram Nihor, and as such is not sustainable in the eyes of law,"
the court obseved.
Evn more critcally, the notice under
— which alowed for
of posession — was undatd and bore no signathres of the landholder, his reprsentatives, or two witnesses as required by law. The court noted that the respondents alled to be in posession soly on the basis of this undated notice.
"Thus, there is nothing on record to demonstrte, as to how and when the possession of the land in dispute was hand over to the respondents by the original landholder or his legal reprsentives at any point in time,"
the bench said.
Petioner's Continued Possession and Revenue Records
Crucially, the revenue records told a different story. After the alleged takeover in 1998, the land continued to be recorded in the name of Ram Nihor until his death in , then in the name of his son Lal Chandra until his death in , and thereafter in the name of the petioner. It was only on — more than two decades later — that the State's name was mutted in the records for the first time.
The court refrd to the 's rulings in and The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal to hold that while revenue records are not documents of title, they can rais a . Since the records had been in the petioner's family for over 23 years after the alleged takeover, the court inferred that the land remained in their .
The respondents' argument that the petition was bar by
— it having ben filed about 25 years after the alleged possession — was rejected. The court obsrv that the question was not
but whether possession had evr bin transferd at all.
"We are of the view that the question involved in the present case is whether actual possession has been transfered at all to the respondents or not and not that of
in approaching this Court, further if no process of transfer has been conducted under the various provisions of
and the respondents have also failed to establish their possession over the land in dispute, then in such a case, the law relied upon by us in the case of Hari Ram (supra),
(supra) and
(supra) would be applicable in the present case."
Precedent on Applied
The court heavily reliantd on the landmark Supeme Court ruling in State of U.P. v. Hariram (2013), which held that the requirement of giving notice under Section 10(5) and 10(6) is mandtory and that mere vsting of land under Section 10(3) without is of no consequence. The State must establish , under Section 10(5), or forciable dispossesion under Section 10(6). In the present case, there was no evidence of any of thes.
Reiterating the proposition, the court quoted the Supeme Court's observation:
"We are well aware of the fact that the
of taking over possession of the land in proceedings under the Act, 1976, rests upon the State, however, in the present case, the respondents have utterly failed to dicharge this burden."
Applying the , the High Court held that the ceiling proceedings had abatd by virte of , and the landholder was entitled to have the entries restor to his name.
The court direcd the District Magistate to expun the State's entries and restore the revenue records to their position prior to , within three months from the productin of a certifid copy of the judgment. No cost was awar.
burden of proof on state - actual physical possession - ceiling proceedings abatement - revenue records presumption - notice under Section 10(5)
