IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Mohd. Raza – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 20118 of 2012
Decided On : 30-09-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 5(6) - Sale deed executed prior to the relevant date - The petitioner claimed rights based on a sale deed executed on 8.10.1971, which was protected under the Act. The court found that the prescribed authority failed to serve notice, rendering the proceedings void. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that lack of notice to the petitioner deprived the authority of jurisdiction to declare land surplus, reaffirming that consent or knowledge does not validate void proceedings. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased khasara no.53 in 1971 and was recorded in revenue records. The land was declared surplus without notice, leading to the petitioner's challenge against the orders of the ceiling authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the orders declaring khasara no.53 as surplus, emphasizing the need for notice and opportunity to be heard.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the sale deed and the jurisdiction of the authorities in declaring the land surplus without notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sale deed executed before the relevant date is protected under the Act, and failure to serve notice invalidates the proceedings. The petitioner's rights were upheld based on the sale deed.
Result: The writ petition stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to 15 and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the khasara no.53 was owned by Beni Madhav son of Jagannath Prasad Dubey, who executed a sale deed on 8.10.1971 in favour of the petitioner- Mohd. Raza in respect to the khasara no.53 area 2-17-15 situated in Village- Hatwa, Tahsil- Dumeriyaganj, District-Basti now Siddharth Nagar. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed petitioner - Mohd. Raza came in possession of the aforementioned khasara no.53 and the name was accordingly, recorded in khatauni of 1378 fasli-1380 fasli. The aforementioned Beni Madhav has expired later on and in his place the name of his three sons, namely, Harish Chandra, Girish Chandra and Krishna Chandra were recorded in the revenue records. The Uttar Pradesh Act No.18 of 1973 had came into force w.e.f. 8.6.1973. Notice on C.L.H. Form No.4 had been issued to all the three legal heirs of Beni Madhav to show cause as to why the statement prepared in C.L.H. 3A, 3B & 3C should not be taken as correct. The legal heirs of deceased Beni Madhav filed their respecting objections before the prescribed authority and prescribed authority in the three cases registered against the three legal heirs of deceased Beni Madhav vide order dated 11.12.1974 declared 5.59 hectare land in irrigated terms as surplus and the plot which were declared surplus included khasara no.53. The proceeding for taking the possession was started by the State, accordingly, petitioner came to know about the order dated 11.12.1974 declaring the khasara no.53 surplus, filed an application dated 3.9.1979 / case before the ceiling authority under Section 11 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act") for recalling / setting aside the order dated 11.12.1974. In the application it was mentioned by the petitioner that petitioner is recorded in the revenue records over khasara no.53 but without notice and opportunity of hearing, khasara no.53 has been declared as surplus treating the khasara no.53 of the respondent nos.16 to 18 (legal heirs of Beni Madhav). Prescribed authority vide order dated 6.3.1982 rejected the case under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act filed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dated 6.3.1982 by way of three appeals before district judge, which were registered as Appeal No.20/1982, 21/1982, 22/1982. The aforementioned appeals were clubbed and decided together by the First Additional District Judge, Basti vide order dated 17.2.1984 whereby the appeals were allowed setting aside the order of prescribed authority dated 6.3.1982 and ordered that khasara no.53 shall be excluded from the holding of respondent nos.16 to 18. Surplus land under the order of prescribed authority dated 11.12.1974 alleged to be allotted to respondent nos.5 to 15. Respondent nos.5 to 15 (allottees) filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12319 of 1984 before this Court against the appellate order dated 17.2.1984, which was allowed vide order dated 3.12.2002 and matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties including allottees. Due to the amendment in the ceiling act, the jurisdiction to decide the appeal was vested with Commissioner in place of District Judge, accordingly, the appeal in pursuance of the remand order passed by this Court was heard by respondent no.2/ Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti, who vide order dated 19.1.2012 dismissed all the three appeals filed by the petitioner, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:
Gurumukh Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
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....
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 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 land transfers made after the reference date under the Ceiling Act are not valid for determining surplus land, and the burden of proof regarding the classification of land ....
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....
Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.