Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 1192 (ALL)

Lal Chand v. State of U. P.

1979-11-07

M.P.MEHROTRA

body1979
JUDGMENT : M.P. MEHROTRA, J. 1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The three Petitioners before me claim that they are the sons of one Lala Ratan Lal and they became Bhumidhars of the plots detailed in para 2 of the petition. It is claimed that on the basis of the family settlement, the father became the Bhumidhar of the said plots and the said father died on 21st May, 1971, and thereafter, the Petitioners became the Bhumidhars of the above mentioned plots. In para 4 of the petition it is said that the names of the Petitioners were mutated by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 24th August, 1973 in regard of the said plots. A true copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 24.10.1973 is annexed to the petition as Annexure-2. It is claimed that in this view of the matter the Petitioners should also have been issued the notice under the first proviso to rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act. The notice u/s 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the late Lala Bishan Lal, father of the Respondent No. 4. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in Shantanu Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1979) AWC 585. In view, this contention cannot be accepted. In Shantanu Kumar's case it will be seen that the name of the Petitioner had been recorded in 1972 i.e. in 1379F. The Full Bench emphasised this aspect of the matter by observing: The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents did not dispute-that plot No. 105 was transferred to the Petitioner by a registered deed of sale, that the Petitioner was recorded in the revenge papers as the Bhumidhar since 1379 F. and the fact that the notice under Rule 8-a was not issued to the Petitioner. 3. In the instant case, on the own admission of the Petitioners, their names were recorded after 8th June, 1973 which is the relevant date u/s 5 (1) of the Act. 3. In the instant case, on the own admission of the Petitioners, their names were recorded after 8th June, 1973 which is the relevant date u/s 5 (1) of the Act. It should be seen that the head note of the heading of C.L.H. Form 3 is as follows: C.L.H. Form 3 part A. Statement of total area of land held by the tenure-holder Sri/Smt. ....Son of/wife of resident of village Tehsil district , and the members of his family in the State of U.P. on June 8, 1973. 4. Therefore, it is clear that if on 8th June 1973, if the name of a person is not recorded, then the first proviso to Rule 8 will not be applicable. The learned Counsel wanted to contend that in C.L.H. Form 3 actually the Petitioner's names appeared. This contention cannot be accepted. As I have stated that C.L.H. Form 3 is prepared with reference to 8.6.1973 as is clear from Part A of the C.L.H. Form 3. In the instant case no copy of the C.L.H. Form 3 was produced and accordingly this contention cannot be accepted. It is fundamentally to the exercise of the determination of the ceiling area and the surplus land that it has to be basically done with reference to 8th June, 1973. Learned Counsel however, sought to contend that in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others the Division Bench laid down that even after 8.6.1973 can be looked into. The Division Bench in the said case was concerned with the reduction in the area of the holding of a tenure-holder during the consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench observed: The burden of the Ceiling Act is that after June 8, 1973 no tenure-holder should continue to possess more than the ceiling area u/s 29 of the Ceiling Act, there is a specific provision for adjustment of ceiling area in case the tenure-holder acquires some more land. It is implicit in the provisions that if because of operation of law the tenure-holder's holding gets reduced, that also should be taken into account. The reduction must be one which is valid in law. 5. It is, therefore, obvious that in Satyapal Singh's case it was emphasised that the reduction must be on account of the operation of law. 6. The reduction must be one which is valid in law. 5. It is, therefore, obvious that in Satyapal Singh's case it was emphasised that the reduction must be on account of the operation of law. 6. Learned Counsel next placed reliance on Bhura vs. State of U.P. 1979 ALJ 339 and Hukum Singh vs. State of U.P. 1979 ALJ 646. These cases referred to the right of the transferees u/s 12-A (d) of the Act and we are not concerned in the instant case with the same. In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed. The learned Counsel sought to contend that his client should be held to be entitled to pursue the remedy in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench in Dilbagh Singh vs. State of U.P. (1978) AWC 393. I should like to make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the Petitioners pursuing any remedy which may be available to them in law. I say nothing about the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.