The validity of a family settlement, the consideration in a gift deed, and the interpretation of statutory provisions under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 28th July 1989 passed by Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Additional District Magistrate, Nainital and the order dated 24th October 1990, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kumaun Division Nainital.

3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, according to the petitioners, are that petitioners Devendra Kumar Shukla, Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Smt. Maya Shukla, who are brothers and sisters and their father Indra Dev Shukla, entered into a family settlement in the year 1960 and memorandum of the settlement was executed on 15th July 1967 and the entire holding was divided into four shares. The petitioners got 1/4th share each in the land situate in village Gangapur Patia and they came over exclusive possession of their share in the year 1960. Subsequently, the matter was resettled between the petitioners and other tenure-holders and a gift deed dated 13th March 1972 was executed by Indra Dev Shukla in favour of the petitioners and the same was registered. A notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act) was issued to Indra Dev Shukla, the father of the petitioners and irrigated land measuring 9.49 Hectares was proposed to be declared a surplus vacant land. Indradev Shukla contested the notice on the ground inter alia that a family settlement took place in the year 1960 and memorandum was executed on 15th July 1967.

4. According to the petitioners, the matter in dispute went upto the Hon'ble High Court and was finally decided by the High Court vide order dated 4-4-1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 2333 of 1977, Indra Deo Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others. The order was passed to the following effect:-

"The result is that this writ petition is partly allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority relating to strength of the family members of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on that question afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. The stay order shall stand discharged."

5. The appellate court by its order dated 16.3.1983 dismissed the appeal of Indradev Shukla, who challenged the order dated 16-3-1983 before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5963 of 1983, which too was dismissed on 10-10-1984.

6. The proceedings were initiated for taking possession the land of the petitioners by Tahsil authorities. Then objection under Section 11(2) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer Kichcha, who by his judgment and order dated 27-2-1986 rejected the objection of the petitioners as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal and the appellate court by order dated 30-5-1987 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration.

7. On remand, the Prescribed Authority rejected the claim of the petitioners by order dated 28-7-1989. It was held that the petitioners are not tenure holder as per Rule 8. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred appeals separately before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Kumaun Division Nainital. All the three appeals were decided by a common judgment. The appellate court has held that no family settlement took place between the parties in the year 1960 or thereafter and possession was not taken by the petitioners on spot. It was also held that by the gift-deed of 1972, the land has been transferred by the tenure holder, which is of no avail in view of provisions of sub- section 6 of Section 5 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal preferred against the said order too was dismissed by its order dated 24-10-1990