Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
State of U.P. - Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Nath And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 3001168 of 1980
Decided On : 04-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2) – Legal heirs – Decreed – Challenged - During pendency of proceedings, both have died and their legal heirs are on record represented - Briefly facts giving rise to instant petition are that upon commencement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 initial notice under Section 10(2) of said Act was issued - Prescribed Authority under Ceiling Act by means of an ex parte order dated confirmed ceiling notice issued - An application was moved for recall of ex parte order - During aforesaid pendency, it was also noticed that another tenure holder had expired and her land also was clubbed - Whether the said sale deed was executed prior or thereafter could only be proved once the said sale deed was on record - Whether the transactions are bonafide.- In absence of said sale deed merely relying upon certain entries in the revenue records which do not establish title and are only for fiscal purposes could not give rise to a categorical finding and conclusion that since the name owas recorded in revenue records prior to said date without clear dates being available as to when it was entered in the revenue records and what was the basis and the reason for incorporating such entries. [Para 20]
Finding of Court : It will also be relevant to notice that the finding which has been reversed by Appellate Court in respect of sale deed said to have been executed by Dinanath in favour of Sundar Lal, same is not adequately considered nor supported with reasons - Whether said sale deed was executed prior to or thereafter could only be proved once the said sale deed was on record - In absence of said sale deed merely relying upon certain entries in revenue records which do not establish title and are only for fiscal purposes could not give rise to a categorical finding and conclusion that since name was recorded in revenue records prior to said date without clear dates being available as to when it was entered in revenue records and what was basis and reason for incorporating such entries - Court finds that Appellate Court has not adhered to principles of law settled and also manner in which objections of tenure holder and the evidence thereon is to be considered - Moreover, categorical findings which have been recorded by the Prescribed Authority have not been considered by Appellate Court in its correct prespective nor any reason has been incorporated why the conclusion of Prescribed Authority were erroneous nor findings of Prescribed Authority have been reversed - In view of aforesaid discussions, Court has no hesitation to hold that impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court dated cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and is liable to be set aside.
Result : Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)
C. M. Applications No.5 and 6 of 2022
1. The instant two applications have been moved by the petitioner to bring on record the heirs of deceased respondent no.2 Dinanath who is reported to have died on 20.10.2017. The record indicates that the notices were issued to the proposed legal heirs of the deceased. In furtherance whereof Shri Rajeiur Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama.
2. Considering the aforesaid facts and the ground shown in the application which is found sufficient, accordingly, the applications are allowed. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall carry out the necessary amendment during the course of the day.
3. Heard Shri G.K. Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner and Shri Rejeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for private respondents on merits.
4. By means of the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the State challenges the judgment and order dated 27.11.1979 passed by the District Judge in Ceiling Appeal No.148 of 1979 whereby the appeal of the private respondents was allowed and the order dated 26.03.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority Qaisarganj District Bahraich declaring 71.373 acres of land belonging to the tenure holder Dinanath as surplus was set aside. It will be relevant to mention that the appeal before the Appellate Court was filed by Kailashnath and Moolchand who are the sons of Dinanath and have been impleaded as private respondents no.1 and 2. During pendency of the proceedings, Kailashnath and Moolchand both have died and their legal heirs are on record represented by Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi. Briefly the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that upon the commencement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 initial notice under Section 10(2) of the said Act was issued to Dinanath son of Ram Bihari. The Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act by means of an ex parte order dated 20.06.1974 confirmed the ceiling notice issued to Dinanath. An application was moved by Dinanath for recall of the ex parte order. During aforesaid pendency, it was also noticed that another tenure holder namely Yashodra had expired on 24.06.1973 and her land also was clubbed with that of Dinanath. Accordingly, revised notice was sent to Dinanath indicating that the land of Yashodra was also be clubbed with that of Dinanath. Dinanath filed his objection wherein he challenged that the land belonging to Yashodra had been incorrectly clubbed with his holding on the ground that Yashodra had already an adopted son Ramji alias Lallu and he being her legal heir would inherit the share of Yashodra and the same could not be clubbed in the hands of Dinanath. The objections were filed by Ramji alias Lallu through his natural father claiming rights over the land and also to the effect that the holding ought not to be included with that of Dinanath. Before the said proceedings could be finalized, another tenure holder namely Smt. Kunta wife of Pratap Narain died. Another notice was issued to Dinanath for including her land of 15.279 acres with the holding of Dinanath. Separate objections were filed by Kailashnath son of Dinanath claiming that Smt. Kunta had executed her Will in favour of Kailashnath and Moolchand and as such they are in cultivatory possession, hence the said land could not be included or clubbed with that of Dinanath. Another issue that cropped up was that some land was sold by Dinanath to one Sundar Lal and this land was also included in the holdings of Dinanath. The Prescribed Authority, considering the objections and after permitting the parties to lead evidence, by means of order dated 26.03.1979 negatived the contentions of the tenure holder and confirmed the notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act and declared 71.373 acres of irrigated land as surplus. An appeal came to be filed by Kailashnath and Moolchand and the said appeal ha
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....
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 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 ....
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.
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
The court affirmed that changes in the U.P. Ceilings Act necessitate a re-determination of surplus land in adherence to legislative amendments, disallowing re-litigation on previously settled land is....
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
