Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
Smt. Maya Devi – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 15271 of 2009
Decided On : 22-10-2024
(A) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 27 - Writ petition regarding mutation of land records - Petitioner purchased land declared surplus, which was later withdrawn from surplus status - Authorities failed to record petitioner's name despite orders - Court held that subsequent proceedings were nonest as land was not surplus - Petitioner entitled to mutation of name. (Paras 4, 14, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction of Authorities - The court emphasized that proceedings under Section 27 can only be invoked when the land is surplus - The foundation for such proceedings was removed when the land was declared non-surplus. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased Arazi no. 297 in 1974, which was later declared surplus in 1976. The petitioner sought to correct the records, but the authorities failed to comply with the orders to mutate her name.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land was no longer surplus and ordered the authorities to mutate the petitioner's name in the records.
Issues: The main issues were whether the land was surplus and the validity of the authorities' refusal to record the petitioner's name.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once the land was declared non-surplus, all subsequent proceedings regarding its surplus status were invalid. The authorities were estopped from contesting the validity of the sale.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 6 of 2018
1. Impleadment application has been filed on behalf of one Ms. Roopa claiming to be the subsequent purchaser of the property in question from the respondent nos. 6 and 7.
2. Sri Brijesh Kumar, advocate appearing for the impleader submits that the present impleadment application has been filed as the right of the impleader could be materially affected by the litigation pending before this Court.
3. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same.
4. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the impleader is permitted to implead Ms. Roopa as respondent no. 8 in the array of parties during course of the day.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the impleader that he does not propose to file counter affidavit as already an affidavit along with impleadment application has been filed which may be construed as his objection to the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel have no objection.
In Re: Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri R. P. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent no.8 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that one Maktool Singh was the original tenure holder and was subjected to ceiling proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has purchased arazi no. 297 situated at Village Nagla Shahpur, Pargana and Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 13th May 1974. Thereafter the land of the original tenure holder-Maktool Singh was declared surplus on 1st May 1976.
3. Petitioner, initially had filed an application for amendment in the order declaring the land surplus, however, the same was rejected without giving any reasons on 3rd December 1977 against which the petitioner had filed an appeal before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar, which was allowed by order dated 1st June 1978 and the matter was remanded back to prescribed authority for rehearing the application of petitioner. The authority concerned, in compliance of the order of appellate authority, thereafter has passed an order dated 27th April, 1979 whereby surplus land being arazi no.297 was withdrawn and new numbers being arazi nos.187 and 246 were exchanged as the aforesaid arazi nos.187 and 246 belonged to original tenure holder.
4. Thereafter, an amended parwana was issued on 31st May 1979, (which has been recorded in the order dated 5th November 1981 which is at page 51 of the paper book). Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahar on 5th November 1981 had directed that the name of State from arazi no.297 be removed and the name of petitioner be included as per the amended parwana issued. The respondent-authorities did not comply with the amended parwana and name of petitioner was not recorded in revenue records. Thereafter, petitioner again filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority for recording of name of petitioner in revenue records in respect of Arazi No.297. The aforesaid application of petitioner was decided by order dated 12th February 1996, whereby it has been specifically recorded that since the land in question was already leased to private respondents, therefore, the matter was referred under Section 27(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short “Act, 1960”), to the Commissioner. The commissioner, in turn, by order dated 27th August, 1996 has rejected the application of petitioner on ground of non-prosecution. The recall application was filed by petitioner to recall order dated 27th August 1996 and the same was also rejected by order dated 4th April 2003.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that recall application which was rejected by order dated 4th April 2003 on ground that reference of applicati
The court ruled that once land is declared non-surplus, all subsequent proceedings regarding its surplus status are invalid, and the petitioner is entitled to have her name recorded in land records.
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....
(1) Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction.(2) Factum of possession is essentially a question of fact – Although there is no hard and fast rule tha....
Writ petitions challenging long-concluded land ceiling proceedings are barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. Revenue records reflecting the vesting of land, maintained for decades without chall....
Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.
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.
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
