Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 3000066 of 1998
Decided On : 14-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: H.S. Sahai, S.K. Gupta, U.S. Sahai.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of adoption and the right of the adopted son to inherit property under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Headnote:
Adoption - Property Dispute - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, claiming to be the adopted son of Sant Ram and entitled to inherit his land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found overwhelming evidence that the petitioner was validly adopted by Sant Ram, including testimonies, ceremonies, and mutation of his name in revenue records. The court held that the petitioner was legally entitled to inherit Sant Ram's property, setting aside the impugned orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was the adopted son of Sant Ram and entitled to inherit his land, or if the land would devolve upon Sant Ram's brothers under the provisions of the Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of adoption, including ceremonies and testimonies, and interpreted the provisions of Section 11 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to establish the validity of the adoption and the petitioner's right to inherit the property.
Final Decision: The impugned orders dated 30.03.1995 and 24.01.1998 were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.01.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 30.03.1995, which was passed under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1960").

3. Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to one Sant Ram and as he was found to be having land less than the ceiling limit, proceedings against him were dropped. In the said proceedings it was found that Sant Ram had two brothers namely Ramdhan and Govardhan and after death of Sant Ram his land devolved upon Ramdhan and Govardhan and after accretion of the said land their land was more than the ceiling limit and accordingly notices under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 were issued to Ramdhan and Govardhan. The proceedings were finalized by the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 30.12.1977 and portion of their land were declared surplus.

4. Against the order dated 30.12.1977, appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority which were allowed by means of order dated 17.05.1978 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh. In the remand proceedings the Prescribed Authority again passed the order declaring the land of tenure holders to be surplus by means of order dated 28.10.1978. Again appeals were preferred by the petitioner as well as recorded tenure holders namely Ramdhan and Govardhan, which appeals were allowed on 16.07.1979 and the matter was again remanded to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority on the second occasion again reiterated his previous order by means of order dated 02.06.1980, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner and other tenure holders. Against the order dated 02.06.1980, the appeals preferred by the petitioner and other recorded tenure holders were also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by means of order dated 18.08.1980, upholding the order of Prescribed Authority dated 02.06.1980, on the ground that the petitioner as well as recorded tenure holders had surplus land.

5. Against the order dated 02.06.1980, writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3387 of 1980 was filed. This Court by means of order dated 15.11.1988, allowed the writ petition considering the fact that the District Judge did not considered the provisions of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 particularly Section 11 and for the limited purposes had remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by means of order dated 29.10.1992, allowed the appeals and further remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority.

6. It is in the remand proceedings that the Prescribed Authority has passed the impugned order dated 30.03.1995, holding that the petitioner is not adopted son of Ramdhan and consequently rejected the objections by means of order dated 30.03.1995 and the said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority – Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad by means of order dated 24.01.1998 and the petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the validity of both the orders dated 30.03.1995 and 24.01.1998 in the present writ petition.

7. The sole question to be considered in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is the adopted son of Ramdhan and accordingly land of Sant Ram devolved upon the petitioner in case it is held that petitioner is adopted son of Sant Ram and land of Sant Ram would devolve upon the petitioner and if not then land of Sant Ram will devolve to Ramdhan and Govardhan and their land subsequently would be considered under the provisions of Act, 1960.

9. The petitioner has submitted that he was adopted by Sant Ram w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document