Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3034 (ALL)

BHOOLEY SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-12-22

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—After the petitioner received a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (‘the Ceiling Act, 1960’), he replied on 17.8.1999. However, after considering the objections of the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority on 18.9.2002 held that the petitioner was having surplus land to the extent of 1.662 hectares in Khata No. 242 gram- Chingrawathi, Pargana & Tehsil- Syana, District- Bulandshahar. 2. Upon appeal being filed by the petitioner, the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18.9.2002 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed on 16.1.2002. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. Late Hansraj Singh had various land holdings in various Khatas in village Chingrawathi and in village Vasudevpur. During the life time of Hansraj Singh, a notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, was issued which was decided on 22.9.1976 by the Prescribed Authority, which order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10.3.1977. The orders passed vis-a-vis, the notice issued to the petitioner’s predecessor in interest thereafter attained finality, as they were never challenged and it was established that he had no surplus land. During his life time Hansraj Singh had gifted in 1970 some properties of his to his grand-son Sanjay Kumar and daughter Bhavtidevi. When the Ceiling Authorities decided the case of Hansraj Singh they had admittedly decided it on the basis of the land which was held by Hansraj Singh on the date when notices under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, were issued to him. After the decision of the Prescribed Authority on 22.9.1976, the father of the petitioner, Hansraj Singh had, also on 24.10.1976, willed some property to his wife Ram Kali (mother of the petitioner). When notice was issued to the petitioner he had specifically stated that, in fact, the holding as was possessed by his father was substantially reduced owning to the fact that the mother of the petitioner had also inherited certain portions of holding of Hansraj Singh. Therefore, he had submitted before the Prescribed Authority that under no circumstances could he have had more land than his father had on the date when the Prescribed Authority had decided the case of his father on 22.9.1976. Therefore, he had submitted before the Prescribed Authority that under no circumstances could he have had more land than his father had on the date when the Prescribed Authority had decided the case of his father on 22.9.1976. However, the petitioner’s case was disbelieved and the Prescribed Authority on 8.9.2002 held that the petitioner was holding surplus land to the extent of 1.662 hectares in Gata No. 242, Gram Chingrawathi and Pargana & Tehsil Syana, District- Bulandshahar. While deciding the case, vis-a-vis the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority held that because of the order dated 22.9.1976 it was only convenient to uphold the validity of the gift which the petitioner’s father had made to the extent of 39 bighas in favour of his grand-son Sanjay Kumar and daughter Bhawti Devi. The Prescribed Authority also adjudicated on the will of Hansraj Singh which was dated 24.10.1976 and observed that it was of no use as it came into existence after 24.1.1971. 4. The appeal of the state praying for declaration of more land as surplus of the petitioner and the petitioner’s appeal for setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority on 18.9.2002 were both decided together on 16.1.2003 whereby the appeal of the State was dismissed in toto and the appeal filed by the petitioner was only partly allowed and the surplus area was reduced from 1.662 hectares to 1.082 hectares. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the two orders and made the following submissions : I. The Prescribed Authority as also the Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the importance of the previous proceedings initiated against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. his father Hansraj Singh who had been found was not holding any surplus land. II. The proceedings vis-a-vis, the father of the petitioner had resulted in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.9.1976 which was upheld in appeal on 10.3.1977 and both the orders had attained finality as they were never challenged by any Authority whatsoever. III. When the holdings of the father of the petitioner were found to have been within the ceiling limits and when specifically his holdings were divided between the petitioner and other heirs of Hansraj Singh then it could not have been held that the petitioner’s land exceeded the ceiling limit, especially, when the limits of ceiling in the year 1976 and in the year 2002 were the same. The reason which the Prescribed Authority has given that the property of the petitioner increased as the mother of the petitioner had willed to him a certain land in the year 1995 is also baseless as the property was the very same property which the father of the petitioner had willed to his mother on 24.10.1976 after the land was declared as being within the ceiling limits on 22.9.1976. IV. In fact, the notices under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, issued to the petitioner should have been discharged as they were in effect trying to initiate proceedings which are contemplated under Section 29 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, where a land holder having independent holding by virtue of a succession/transfer/decree of a Court comes into possession of certain areas by which his holding exceeds the maximum permissible limit. V. In the end the counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever land the petitioner inherited was contained within the area of the land which the petitioner’s father admittedly held on 22.9.1976, the date on which the Prescribed Authority had found that the holding of the father was well within the ceiling limits. 6. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that a wrong decision was given in favour of the father of the petitioner and that a wrong decision would not operate as res judicata. He further, submitted that any transfer which the petitioner’s father had made had to be added in the holding of the petitioner as the transfers were made after 24.1.1971. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law when the proceedings as were initiated against Hansraj Singh with regard to his holdings had found that Hansraj Singh was not having land which exceeded the ceiling limit on 22.9.1976 and definitely the petitioner had inherited only a certain portion of the area of the landed property of his father. Definitely, there is no finding to the effect that the petitioner had more area of land than what his father had. 8. Under such circumstances, the orders dated 16.1.2002 and 18.9.2002 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively are quashed and the writ petition is allowed.