Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 400 (ALL)

Ram Krishna Math v. State of U. P.

2022-03-21

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. The present petition has been filed, impugning the orders dated 29.07.1992 and 20.01.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short “the Act 1960”). 2. The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Lucknow rejected the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 against which the appeal got dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The orders passed to the said effect are under challenge in this petition. 3. One Tej Narain Dar was exclusive owner in possession of agricultural land, consisting of several plots in village Katarabakkash, Pargana and Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. He became owner and got possession of the said land as a result of partition decree of the year 1976 passed under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. Parents of Tej Narain Dar, namely, Anand Swaroop Narain Dar and Smt. Mohan Rani Dar had three more sons, namely, Jagdish Narain Dar, Ishwar Narain Dar and Rajendra Narain Dar. It is said that wife of Tej Narain Dar also owned and exclusively possessed agricultural land holding in her name as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. 5. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to Tej Narain Dar, clubbing his land-holding and land holding of his wife, treating them to be one unit. After contest, the ceiling area of husband and wife was determined and surplus area was declared by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26.09.1974. 6. In the year 1976, Smt. Mohan Rani Dar, mother of Tej Narain Dar and his three brothers, died. She was in possession of separate bhumidhari agricultural land holding. Her land holding got devolved amongst her sons, namely, Tej Narain Dar, Rajendra Narain Dar and Smt. Urmila Dar, widow of Ishwar Narain Dar and Smt. Nirmala Dar, wife of Late Jagdish Narain Dar to the extent of 1/4th share to each through sale-deed dated 20.07.1966. As a result of bequest 1/4th share of his mother by virtue of the will dated 20.07.1966. The total land holding in possession of Tej Narain Dar, after the first ceiling proceedings crossed the ceiling limits and, in view of increase in his land holding, Tej Narain Dar informed the Ceiling Authority himself about his land holding having got increased. As a result of bequest 1/4th share of his mother by virtue of the will dated 20.07.1966. The total land holding in possession of Tej Narain Dar, after the first ceiling proceedings crossed the ceiling limits and, in view of increase in his land holding, Tej Narain Dar informed the Ceiling Authority himself about his land holding having got increased. A fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 for the second time was issued to him. He voluntarily surrendered his specified plots of land for declaring the surplus area. The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Lucknow passed the final order dated 03.12.1981, declaring for the second time the surplus land of Tej Narain Dar. 7. Against the said order dated 03.12.1981, Rajendra Narain Dar preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Lucknow and also filed objection before the Prescribed Authority, alleging that while declaring surplus land of Tej Narain Dar and his wife, some of his own plots had been declared as surplus land by including them in the holding of Tej Narain Dar. In view of the objection filed by Rajendra Narain Dar, the appeal filed by him got abated. The ceiling proceedings against Tej Narain Dar, which was initially decided on 03.12.1981, was re-opened after recalling the order dated 03.12.1981. 8. The petitioners filed an objection in the said proceedings on 02.09.1987 through which the reopening of the ceiling proceedings of Tej Narain Dar was opposed and, in the alternate, it was claimed that most of the land in possession of Tej Narain Dar and his wife was the tenancy of the petitioners through the various deeds. 9. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 28.11.1987 determined the surplus area of Tej Narain Dar and his wife, treating them to be one unit. Plot nos. 1643/1, area 19 Biswas and 15 Biswansis, 1744/1, area 2 Biswas, 14 Biswansis and 10 Kachhwansis besides other plots were declared surplus which had been given by Taj Narain Dar to the petitioners. 10. It may be noted here that Tej Narain Dar and his wife were issue less and, were great devotees of the Ram Krishna Math and its sister organization Ram Krishana Mission. They had dedicated almost their entire properties, including the plots, mentioned as agricultural land, to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. 10. It may be noted here that Tej Narain Dar and his wife were issue less and, were great devotees of the Ram Krishna Math and its sister organization Ram Krishana Mission. They had dedicated almost their entire properties, including the plots, mentioned as agricultural land, to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. A separate trust was created by the Ram Krishna Math and Ram Krishna Mission and, Tej Narain Dar and Smt. Urmila Dar, widow of Late Ishwar Narain Dar in the memory of late Smt. Mohan Rani Dar, mother of Tej Narain Dar, named as 'Mohan Rani Dar Religious and Charitable Endowment Trust. Tej Narain Dar and his wife dedicated their 1/4th share each in the mango groves, being plot nos. 2493, 2494/1, 2494/2, 2495, 2496, 2499, 2402/1, 2516, 2522, 2523, 2524, 2525, 2526, 2527, 2528, 2529, 2530, 2531, 2532, 2561/1, 2562/1, 2588, 2589, 2592 and 2593. Subsequently, Smt. Nirmala Dar, wife of Jagdish Narain Dar, also sold her 1/4th share in the above mentioned mango groves received by her under the bequest from her mother-in-law, Smt. Mohan Rani Dar to Charitable Trust. Thus, Smt. Mohan Rani Dar Religious and Charitable Endowment Trust came to own and posses 3/4th share in the above mentioned groves and, the remaining 1/4th share in the said grove remained to be owned by Rajendra Narain Dar jointly with the said Trust. 11. The above mentioned dedications of the properties, included the agricultural holding of Tej Narain Dar and his wife, Smt. Sarala Dar, which was made by Tej Narain Dar, acting for himself and, as the general agent of his wife in favour of the Math and Mission. The above mentioned dedications of properties, including the agricultural holding of Tej Narain Dar and his wife, Smt. Sarala Dar, were made by Tej Narain Dar acting for himself and as the general agent of his wife in favour of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 through different registered deeds, will and trust deeds executed by Smt. Urmila Dar. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid deeds and dedications, title and possession, the mutation report proceedings were made under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Tehsildar Mohanlalganj by the petitioners. 1 and 2 through different registered deeds, will and trust deeds executed by Smt. Urmila Dar. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid deeds and dedications, title and possession, the mutation report proceedings were made under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Tehsildar Mohanlalganj by the petitioners. The mutation proceedings were opposed by Rajendra Narain Dar by filing objections, challenging to the dedication made by his brother, Tej Narain Dar, his wife, Smt. Sarala Dar and Smt. Urmila Dar, widow of Ishwar Narain Dar. 13. During the pendency of mutation proceedings, Tej Narain Dar died on 22.08.1985. Rajendra Narain Dar managed to obtain mutation of his name as well name of his brother Jagdish Narain Dar (since deceased, husband of Smt. Nirmala Dar) in Khatauni through PA-11 in place of recorded tenure holders, Tej Narain Dar and his wife Smt. Sarala Dar. 14. Applications under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were dismissed on 24.09.1988 on the ground that the land was involved in ceiling proceedings. 15. A fresh notice was issued to Rajendra Narain Dar, who was Village Pradhan, as well as to Jagdish Narain Dar (since deceased, husband of Smt. Nirmala Dar). Pursuance to the said notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960, the Additional District Magistrate (Executive)/Prescribed Authority, Rural Ceiling, Lucknow in Ceiling Case No. 14 of 1988-89 passed the order on 16.12.1989, declaring the very land as surplus which consisted of the plots which were subject matter of the dedications and the said mutation proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioners. 16. When the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order dated 16.12.1989, an application dated 20.03.1990 was moved before the Additional District Magistrate (Executive)/Prescribed Authority, Rural Ceiling who stayed the implementation of the order dated 16.12.1989 and also passed an order for issuing notice to Naib Tehsildar (Ceiling). Thereafter, on 17.04.1990, the petitioners moved a detailed regular objection under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960, claiming themselves respectively to be owners and tenure holders of the land in question and prayed for an opportunity of hearing. 17. On 29.07.1992, the Prescribed Authority rejected the objection and prayer of the petitioners and, maintained the order dated 16.12.1989, holding that the objection was not maintainable. 18. Having aggrieved from the said order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners filed Appeal Nos. 40 and 41. 17. On 29.07.1992, the Prescribed Authority rejected the objection and prayer of the petitioners and, maintained the order dated 16.12.1989, holding that the objection was not maintainable. 18. Having aggrieved from the said order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners filed Appeal Nos. 40 and 41. Both the appeals were dismissed by common judgment dated 20.01.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow. 19. Heard Dr. Ram Surat Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate, representing the petitioners, as well as Mr. J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing respondents-State, and gone through the entire record. 20. On behalf of the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have passed non-speaking orders, dismissing the appeals. It was held that since the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 had already been given to the recorded tenure holders and the petitioners being not the recorded tenure holders, they were not entitled for any notice under the Act, 1960 and, they were not entitled to file and maintain objections under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960. 21. The question, which is involved in the present case, is whether an objection filed under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 by an unrecorded tenure holder would be legally maintainable and whether such an unrecorded tenure holder is entitled to be heard by the Prescribed Authority in respect of the land, which has been declared surplus and, which is claimed to be of such an unrecorded tenure holder. 22. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been in possession of the land and they have interest in land holding which was declared as surplus, therefore, in spite of the fact that the ceiling proceedings were drawn and two orders were passed in respect of the same land against the recorded tenure holders, the objection under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 on behalf of the petitioners claiming to have interest and right over the said land could not have been thrown out on the ground of maintainability. 23. On behalf of the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the two authorities below have wrongly recorded the finding that the petitioners did not file any evidence in support of their case, whereas they had filed documentary evidence in support of their claim. 24. 23. On behalf of the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the two authorities below have wrongly recorded the finding that the petitioners did not file any evidence in support of their case, whereas they had filed documentary evidence in support of their claim. 24. The notice requiring the tenure holder to show cause why the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority be not taken as correct is to be issued to the tenure holder in respect of whose holding the statement has been prepared under CLH Form-3 by the Prescribed Authority. Under the proviso, of Rule-8 of The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served a notice to the person in whose name the land included in CLH Form 3 is ostensibly held. The Prescribed Authority prepares the statement on the basis of the revenue records. If from the revenue records or other information, the Prescribed Authority comes to know that the land included in the statement in CLH Form 3 includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the Prescribed Authority is bound to serve a notice on such a person. 25. This Court in C.M. Writ Petition No. 4859 of 1986 (Gurumukh Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) vide judgment dated 24th July, 1989 held that from a bare reading of Section 9(2) and Rule-8 it is manifest that notice under Section 9(2) is mandatory to the recorded tenure holder and in case tenure holder is not recorded, or if another tenure holder has purchased the land, but is not recorded then the notice must be issued to him as well. Under rule-8 it has been provided that CLH Form-3 also includes the land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon such a person a notice in CLH Form-4 together with a copy of the statement in CLH Form-3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice, why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. Relevant part of the said judgment is extracted herein-below: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Relevant part of the said judgment is extracted herein-below: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Section 9(2) and Rule 8 makes it manifest that the notice under Section 9(2) is mandatory to the recorded tenure-holder and in case tenure-holder is not recorded, or if another tenure-holder has purchased the land but is not recorded, then the notice must be issued to him as well. Under Rule 8 of the Rules it has been provided that C.L.H. form 3 also includes the land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon such a person a notice in C.L.H. form 4 together with a copy of the statement of C.L.H. form No. 3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice, why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. In the present case, no such notice was given to petitioners, who were purchasers from the recorded tenure-holder under the aforesaid sale-deed. The provisos of Rule 8 were mandatory in nature. These4 provisions are set out as follows: “As soon as may, after expiry of the thirty days from the date of publication of the general notice in C.L.H. Form 1 in the official gazette, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon every tenure holder, who have failed to submit the statement in C.L.H. Form 2 or has submitted an incomplete or incorrect statement, a notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with the copy of statement in C.L.H. Form 3 prepared under Rule calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of the service of the notice, why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct.” Rule 8 provides two types of tenure-holders, First is the recorded tenure holder and the proviso provides notice to be served on any other tenure holder other than provided in the 1st part of the Rule. Section 3(17) defines tenure holder, which means holder of a holding. After execution of the sale-deed, the vendees the petitioners in the present case, become holders of a holding even though they might not be recorded in the revenue papers as Bhumidhars. Section 3(17) defines tenure holder, which means holder of a holding. After execution of the sale-deed, the vendees the petitioners in the present case, become holders of a holding even though they might not be recorded in the revenue papers as Bhumidhars. A bare reading of Section 9 and Rule 8 would make it evidence that notice is statutorily required to be served on the Vendees, even though they might not have been entered in the revenue papers. Apart from the statutory requirement under the general principles of law or the conman law also, in the exercise of judicial or quasi judicial power the rules of natural justice should be observed. It should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The primary rule of natural justice is that no one may be condemned unheard or no citizen must be deprived of his legal rights or property without first affording him reasonable opportunity of hearing by serving a notice on him or them. Lake District Special Planning Board vs. Secretary of State for Environment (3), R.V. Working JJ. Ex-parte Gassage (4), Civil Judge (supra) the Full Bench (on Para 36; Page 142) rules as follows: “The fact that a tenure holder is not recorded as such in the revenue records is not relevant for determining whether he is entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Act and issued notice to another person under Section 10(2) of the Act and the above fact does not disentitle him to file an objection if he is otherwise entitled to do so.” 26. If a person has acquired right, title and interest by a legal and valid instrument of sale-deed, will or dedication, then he would be required to be issued notice even if his name is not recorded as tenure holder in the revenue record and, if the land of such a person is treated to be land holding of the tenure holder to whom notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued and proceedings got finalized, such a person would be entitled to file an objection under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 and the Prescribed Authority should decide the objection after giving opportunity for adducing evidence by such person and other affected persons. 27. 27. In the present case, the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 have been dismissed on the ground being not maintainable and also on the ground that the petitioners did not produce evidence. I find that the ground on which the objections of the petitioners were rejected are untenable. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 29.07.1992 and 20.01.1994 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Prescribed Authority, Ceiling, Lucknow and the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, copies of which are contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively, are hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority to decide a fresh the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 after affording them opportunity for leading evidence and, pass a fresh order expeditiously.