Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Sunder Lal – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondent
Misc. Single No. 808, 807, 809, 810 of 1991
Decided On : 24-12-2021
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 - Sections 11(2), 10(2), 13, 5(8), 10(2) and 5(6) - Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 - clause (c) of Section 2 - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 153 - Co-tenure holders and declared surplus - Partition decree - Counter affidavits - Alleged in writ petitions are Singh was original tenure holder of land in dispute who acquired the disputed property by means of a partition decree - He executed a registered sale deed of plot acres in favour of petitioner - Ground that petitioner is a tenure holder/bhumidhar of land in dispute situated in village on basis of a registered sale deed - Co-tenure holders and declared surplus which could not have been done - An objection was filed by State opposing application on the ground that sale deed was executed during ceiling proceedings because Ceiling proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act.
Petitioner has also not been found bona fide by court's below on the ground that there was a grove on the land in dispute but sale of only land was made both should have been sold - Correct because certified copy of written statement filed by Power of Attorney holder before Prescribed Authority, which has been filed with supplementary affidavit - Disputed grove in partition in suit, which was pending in court of Civil Judge w.e.f. - It was further stated that said grove may be included in his ceiling area and the notice may be cancelled and if it is not possible another grove of answering respondent may be kept in his ceiling area - Sale deed was not bonafide and the partition on the basis of compromise was made in a proceeding which had started on cut apparently whole exercise was done in a fraudulent manner to save land from the provisions of Ceiling Act - Land in dispute was declared surplus on the option of tenure holders vague revised option of Power of Attorney holder of only one of them that too without specification was not valid and acceptable in the facts and circumstances of case.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The writ petition No.808 (MS) of 1991, writ petition No.807 (MS) of 1991, writ petition No.809 (MS) of 1991 and writ petition No.810 (MS) of 1991 arises out of the common judgment and order dated 27.10.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority/opposite party no.3 by means of which four applications of the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Ceiling Act) have been dismissed and the order dated 30.01.1991, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow/opposite party no.2 in four appeals filed by the petitioner. Therefore, they have been clubbed together and are being decided together by a common judgment and order.
3. The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the aforesaid cases as alleged in the writ petitions are that Kunwar Yudhendra Bahadur Singh son of Jayendra Bahadur Singh was the original tenure holder of the land in dispute who acquired the disputed property by means of a partition decree dated 07.04.1973 in Civil Suit No.11-B/52 from the court of Civil Judge, Kheri. He executed a registered sale deed of the plot no.68/4.43 acres in favour of the petitioner on 06.12.1983. The application under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act was filed on the ground that the petitioner is a tenure holder/bhumidhar of the land in dispute situated in village Bhansariya, Pargana-Kheri, Tehsil-Lakhimpur, District-Kheri on the basis of a registered sale deed. The land in dispute has wrongly been included in the holdings of the other co-tenure holders and declared surplus which could not have been done. An objection was filed by the State opposing the application on the ground that the sale deed was executed during ceiling proceedings because the Ceiling proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act were pending since 1981 and decided on 28.02.1986, therefore it was not valid as such the application was liable to be dismissed. Considering the same the application was dismissed by means of the order dated 27.10.1989. The petitioners preferred four appeals under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act before the opposite party no.2. All the four appeals were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 30.01.1991. Hence the present four writ petitions have been filed.
4. The writ petitions have been contested by the respondent-State by filing the counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits, to which the rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioners. To which supplementary counter affidavit was filed, but no response to that has been filed.
5. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the sale deed executed during the ceiling proceedings is not void, however it can be ignored for the purpose of Ceiling Act. But on the choice, under Section 12-A proviso (d) of the Ceiling Act, given on behalf of the transferrer was liable to be considered and the land of petitioner should have been excluded in lieu of other land of transferrer but it has not been considered and wrongly ignored on the ground that the right of choice has already been exercised by the transferrer. Therefore the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to accept the choice of the transferrer and take his another land in place of the land of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Mohd. Hayat Khan (Minor) Versus State of U.P. and others; 1991 (9) LCD 395, Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh Versus Prescribed Authority and others (F.B., L.B.); 1968 RD 171, Mohd. Muste Hassan and others Versus The Addl. Commissioner, Meerut and others; 1995 RD186, Jogendra Singh and others Versus State of U.P. and others; 1983 All.L.J.1297, Smt. Prema Devi Versus A.D.J, Hamirpur and anot
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court did not have valid or sufficient grounds for rejecting the revised choice indicated by the petitioner because the choice can be revised till such time his....
The court held that valid sale deeds executed before the appointed date under the Ceiling Act must be considered, and notices issued post-death of the tenure holder are invalid.
Point of Law : once a transfer is shown to be bona fide and further satisfies all the other positive and negative conditions laid down in the proviso (b) to Section 5(6), there is no justification in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to conform to the legal principles and observations made by the higher courts, particularly the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High ....
Sale deeds executed prior to the appointed date under the Ceiling Act cannot be disregarded, and the authority must respect the validity of such transactions in determining surplus land.
The court ruled that a sale deed executed before the relevant date is protected under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and failure to serve notice invalidates surplus lan....
The court established that land transfers made after the reference date under the Ceiling Act are not valid for determining surplus land, and the burden of proof regarding the classification of land ....
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
