Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Bhukhal – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Gorakhpur And Others – Respondent
Writ C No.31553 of 2002
Decided on : 24-07-2024
CEILING ACT - LAND HOLDINGS - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 5, 11(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, particularly Sections 5 and 11(2). Section 5 establishes the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holders, while Section 11(2) allows for objections to be filed against orders made in absence of a tenure-holder. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that a sale deed executed before the appointed date cannot be disregarded, influencing the decision to uphold the Prescribed Authority's order and reject the State's appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land in 1960, which was later declared surplus without notice under the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority allowed the petitioner's objection, but the State appealed five years later, leading to a remand for fresh consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Prescribed Authority's order was justified and that the State's appeal was an abuse of process, as the sale deed had not been cancelled and was executed before the relevant date.
Issues: Whether the State's appeal against the Prescribed Authority's order was valid given the delay and the circumstances surrounding the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed executed before the appointed date must be considered valid, and the Prescribed Authority's decision could not be set aside without sufficient grounds. The remand by the Commissioner was deemed an abuse of process.
Final Decision: The appellate order was set aside, and the order of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed, allowing the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
1. Heard Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 156 area 0.50 Dismal situated in village Ahirauli Rai, Tappa Parwarpar, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Kasya, District-Deoria at present District Kushinagar was purchased by the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed executed in his favour on 10.03.1960. In proceeding under Section 10 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 hereinafter to referred as Ceiling Act, the aforementioned plot no. 156 was declared as surplus vide order dated 19.02.1990 without any notice to petitioner accordingly petitioner filed an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act stating that petitioner had purchased the plot in question by way of registered sale deed from the then recorded tenure holder Laxmi Pratap Narayan Singh, but without any notice and opportunity to petitioner, the plot in question has been declared as surplus. State has filed his reply in the aforementioned proceeding under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 03.05.1994 allowed the objection of the petitioner under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act and separated the plot no. 156 area 0.50 Dismil from the Ceiling proceedings. Against the said order dated 03.05.1994, State filed an appeal before Commissioner along with the prayer for condonation of delay of five years. The aforementioned appeal was registered as appeal no. 1/K of 1999. The Commissioner vide order dated 31.05.2022 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 03.05.1994 and remanded the matter before the Prescribed Authority for fresh decision of the dispute under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Hence, the present petition on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs:-
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute in pursuant to order dated 31.05.2002.
iii) issue any other and further suitable order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv) award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
3. This Court entertained the matter on 05.08.2002 and stayed the operation of the order dated 03.05.2002.
4. In pursuance of the order dated 05.08.2002 the State has filed Counter affidavit and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objection under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act filed by the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed executed on 10.03.1960 in his favour was allowed after giving proper opportunity to the State, as such the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act can not be set aside in appeal filed by the State after five years from the date of judgment of the Prescribed Authority. He further submitted that the appellate Court after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh decision of objection, which is abuse of process of law. He next submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner has not been cancelled, as such the order passed under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act can not be set aside in appeal filed by the State. He further submitted that in respect to the remaining area of the same plot, another sale deed was executed by the then recorded owner Laxmi Pratap Narayan Singh in favour of one Jagar Nath and Others and under similar circumstances his appeal was allowed by the Commissioner,
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.
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 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 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 court established that proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960, that were initiated prior to the 1972 amendment abated, necessitating new proceedings to be initiated unde....
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
The court established that claims of adverse possession must be substantiated with documentary evidence, and that collusion between parties can invalidate claims under land ceiling laws.
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 ....
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
