Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Chakra Manoher And Another – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P., Through Secy. Revenue Lko. Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 3000014 of 2007
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Ceiling Proceedings - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2), Section 11(2), Section 5 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10(2), Section 11(2), and Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It emphasized the importance of serving notice to the concerned parties and the presumption of possession based on the sale deed executed prior to the cut-off date. The court also highlighted the requirement for actual cultivatory possession and the implications of the same on the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Commissioner, claiming that the proceedings and orders were vitiated due to the lack of notice issued to them in the ceiling proceedings. They argued that the land in question was excluded from the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, 1960, as they were in possession prior to the cut-off date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' names existed in C.L.H. Form - 3, raising a presumption of their possession over the land at the relevant time. It also noted that the sale deed was executed prior to the cut-off date, and the petitioners' actual cultivatory possession had to be considered under Explanation II of Section 5 of the Act, 1960.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of notice to the petitioners, their possession of the land in question, and the validity of the proceedings under the Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and void due to the lack of notice served to the petitioners, and the orders passed by the authorities were liable to be quashed. It emphasized the importance of serving notice and the implications of actual cultivatory possession on the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh. The petitioners were given four weeks to file all evidence to demonstrate their ownership of the land, and the proceedings were directed to be concluded expeditiously within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Anapoorna Agnihotri, Advocate holding brief of Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.03.1996, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bahraich in Case No. 45/106, the order dated 10.11.2006, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Devi Patan Division, Gonda in Case No. 238/2 and the order dated 08.03.1990, passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No. 778/3/48/15, on the ground that in ceiling proceedings pending before the Prescribed Authority, Bahraich no notice was issued to the petitioners and for want of which the proceedings and the order passed thereunder are vitiated in law.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1960") was issued to one Sampata Devi with regard to land holding measuring 19.152 acres situated in Village - Gurchahi, Pargana - Ikauna, District - Shrawasti. Sampata Devi had filed objections to the said notice but did not contest the objections seriously. After Sampata Devi's land dwelled upon Smt. Bindra Devi and petitioners purchased the said land through registered sale deed dated 01.09.1970 from Bindra Devi and the land was also recorded in the name of petitioners subsequent to the registration of sale deed. During the course of pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, Smt. Bindra Dei died and the petitioners possession over the land in question has been admitted prior to the cut of date fixed under Section 5 of the Act, 1960, under Explanation II in the light of the sale deed executed in 1970. The land in question stood excluded from the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, 1960 on account of which for want of notice issued to the petitioners, the order is nullity. When the order came to the knowledge of the petitioners, they preferred an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960, the same has been rejected. The order passed by the Prescribed Aurhority has been affirmed in the appeal.
4. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioners has cited certain decisions of this Court one which is referred hereunder i.e. Shantanu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1979 ALL L.J. 1174, wherein it has been held that once the authority concerned has arrived at the conclusion that the land in question included in the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 includes the land ostensively held in the name of any other person, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to serve upon the petitioners the requisite notice together with the copy of the statement and call upon him to show cause why that statement be not taken as correct. If no notice was issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1960, remedy is available to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the proceedings and by considering likewise facts involved in the matter, the Full Bench of this Court had proceeded to allow the writ petition and quash the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on this very ground.
5. From the perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 08.03.1990, it is obvious that the possession of the petitioners over the land in question has been discussed as it was stated by the concerned Lekhpal. The Explanation II of Section 5 of the Act, 1960 speaks that if on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person, who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possession and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or license or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land an
The legal heirs of a recorded tenure holder are entitled to contest the determination of surplus land, and compliance with notice requirements is essential for the validity of proceedings.
The fact that a tenure holder is not recorded as such in the revenue records is not relevant for determining whether he is entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1) ....
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
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 duty of the tenure holder to submit a correct statement of land holding and the authority's power to issue a second notice if the first notice was defective or incorrect, as long as adjudication ....
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....
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.
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
