IMPORTANT POINT
A will executed prior to the amendment requiring registration is valid, and independent tenure-holders' holdings cannot be clubbed for ceiling purposes under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.

1. By this judgment, we propose to decide the present writ petition and connected Writ-C No.18087 of 2022 for reason that both the writ petitions relate to the same land, declared surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in proceedings, taken by the State against the same parties. And, of course, there are common questions of fact and law involved in both causes.

2. Since Writ-C No.18084 of 2022 was heard as the leading case, we propose to notice facts from the records of the said case.

3. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority-Ceiling/Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit dated September the 16th, 2014 passed in Case No.5 of 2008-09, under Section 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’), declaring land surplus under the Act in the petitioner’s hands to the extent of 1.525 hectares. Also, under challenge is an appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 19th May, 2022, dismissing the petitioner's appeal under Section 13 of the Act and affirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, last mentioned.

4. The facts giving rise to this petition are these:

Ranjeet Singh and his mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur were two tenure-holders, who had agricultural holdings. Whereas Ranjeet Singh had a total of 6.970 hectares of land, his mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur had a holding of 1.855 hectares. These holdings were bhumidhari with transferable rights and situate in the revenue villages of Baharua and Tondarpur Saharai, Pargana Pilibhit, Tehsil Sadar, District Pilibhit. As it appears, both the mother and son were independent tenure-holders and while in possession of their respective holdings, no proceedings for determination of surplus under the Act were drawn against them. It is, in fact, the petitioner's case that Ranjeet Singh and his mother, Surjeet Kaur were independent tenure-holders in their own right, who held land independent of each other within the permissible ceiling limits.

5. The genesis of the lis commenced when Ranjeet Singh's mother, Surjeet Kaur bequeathed her entire holding of 1.855 hectares to her three granddaughters, all married women, to wit, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur wife of Kuldeep Singh, Smt. Rajwant Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh and Smt. Lakhvar Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh, all daughters of Ranjeet Singh. This bequest was made by means of an unregistered Will dated 14.07.2004. Smt. Surjeet Kaur, the testatrix, died on 16.01.2005. The three legatees under the will, to wit, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Lakhvar Kaur made an application, seeking mutation of their names, on the basis of the last mentioned Will as succession opened out in terms thereof.

6. The Naib Tehsildar, Nuria, District Pilibhit, before whom the mutation matter came up on the basis of the will, granted it vide order dated 18.05.2005. The record would show that after registration of the case on the Naib Tehsildar's file, proceedings were duly advertised in order to put to notice any one, who might hold interest in the property, subject matter of mutation and wish to object. There was no objection. Treating the mutation matter, therefore, as 'non-contentious', the Naib Tehsildar granted it after recording necessary evidence. This resulted in expunction of the name of Smt. Surjeet Kaur and mutation in favour of Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Lakhvar Kaur.

7. On the 18th of August, 2006, the Halqa Lekhpal for Tondarpur made an application to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Pilibhit pointing out that the mutation order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, last mentioned, on 18.05.2005 was one founded on an unregistered will, and, therefore, entirely illegal. He said that on the date the succession opened out, an unregistered Will relating to agricultural land was not admissible. He, therefore, pra