Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1944 (ALL)

Gurmeet Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-08-11

ALOK MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the aforementioned cases are taken up together, as they arise of common proceedings. 2. Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan, Advocate along with Dr. R.K. Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent are present. 3. By means of the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings and orders passed in proceedings under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1960'). 4. It has been submitted that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to the original tenure holder Sri Labh Singh S/o Mehtab Singh, which was served on him on 03.12.1974. As per the said notice, it was proposed to declare 83.57 Acres of land as 'Surplus'. 5. The original tenure holder filed his objections to the said notice and stated that he had sold major portion of the said land by executing registered sale-deeds of 12.05 Acres on 03.06.1970 in favour of Gur Bachan Kaur; of 12.05 Acres on 08.04.1970 in favour of Jitendra Singh; of 12.05 Acre on 08.04.1970 in favour of Binder Kaur; of 12.05 Acre on 03.06.1970 in favour of Gurmeet Singh; of 12.05 Acre on 03.06.1970 in favour of Beayant Singh Kaur; of 12.30 Acre on 03.06.1970 in favour of Indrapal Singh; of 11.24 Acre on 18.04.1970 in favour of Arvind Kaur; and he further submitted that all these sale-deeds have been executed prior to the cut-of-date, i.e. 24.01.1971, prescribed in the Act of 1960 and hence the said land ought to be excluded from the holdings of the original holder. It was further submitted that after excluding the said lands there was no land, which exceeded the ceiling-limit, which is prescribed in the said Act, and accordingly prayed for discharge of the notice issued to him. The original tenure holder had filed evidence of all sale-deeds before the Prescribed Authority and also examined himself in support of the objections raised by him. 6. The Prescribed Authority after considering all the material on record and also going through the sale-deeds, agreed with the objections filed by the original tenure holder and excluded all the lands, which have been alienated on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds and discharged the notices issued to the original tenure holder. 7. 6. The Prescribed Authority after considering all the material on record and also going through the sale-deeds, agreed with the objections filed by the original tenure holder and excluded all the lands, which have been alienated on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds and discharged the notices issued to the original tenure holder. 7. The controversy in the present case has started on issuance of another notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 on 08.07.1991 to Dheeraj Singh, who is the son of the original tenure holder. The objections were filed by taking the plea that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by the Prescribed Authority, when he had issued notice with regard to the same holding to the then original tenure holder Labh Singh and on the basis of the sale-deeds he had discharged the notices. It has been submitted that once notices were discharged, proceedings under the Act of 1960 came to an end and the Prescribed Authority had discharged the notices after due consideration of all the evidence on record, especially the sale-deeds where his holding was sold to seven persons prior to the cut-of-date. 8. The State, on the other hand, submitted that the sale-deeds executed by Labh Singh were Sham and fictitious and have been entered into only to evade the ceiling proceedings under the Act of 1960. It has also been stated that all the vendees were minor, at the time the sale-deeds were executed and they were also minor on the date of coming into effect of the said Act and, in fact, the land had at all times been vested in the original tenure holder and subsequently in the petitioner, who is his son. In this way, it has been submitted that the petitioner held land more than the land as prescribed under the Act of 1960 and consequently, there was no infirmity in subjecting him to the proceeding under the said Act. 9. The Prescribed Authority by means of an order dated 22.06.1993 rejected all the objections raised by the petitioner and declared 59.182 Acre as the 'Surplus Land'. He returned a finding that all the vendees were minor on the date when the sale-deeds were executed and that Labh Singh had sold the land to his grand-children, while he continued to be in possession of the said land even pursuant to the sale-deeds. He returned a finding that all the vendees were minor on the date when the sale-deeds were executed and that Labh Singh had sold the land to his grand-children, while he continued to be in possession of the said land even pursuant to the sale-deeds. With regard to the plea that proceedings under section 10(2), Act of 1960 had been finalized, the Prescribed Authority has no power to re-open the same, as the proceedings were bad considering the principle of res-judicata, he rejected the contention of the petitioner stating that the parties are different and the land is also different, while deciding Issue No. 5. 10. Being aggrieved by order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.06.1993, two appeals were preferred by the petitioner and decided by the common judgment by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial)-I, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow, by means of order dated 22.06.1994. The said appeals were rejected and the order of the Prescribed Authority was confirmed. While rejecting the said appeals, the Appellate Authority noticed that the State had not given any details about the age of the vendees to whom sale-deeds had been executed by Labh Singh and further gave a categorical finding that the notices issued under section 10(2) were defective in as much as the details of the family were not properly shown and it was also not indicated as to whether they were minor or not. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has submitted that institution of the proceedings was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provision. He further stated that once the proceedings had previously been initiated under Section 10(2), Act of 1960 against the original tenure holder Labh Singh and his objections were sustained in as much as all these sale-deeds were found to be genuine and correct and were excluded from the original holding of Labh Singh, then the same land could not again be subjected to the provisions of the Act of 1960 and once the sale-deeds have been executed without demur, they cannot be subjected to challenge under fresh proceedings under section 10(2) of the Act of 1960. He also submitted that the principle of res-judicata applies with full force even to the ceiling proceedings under the Act of 1960 and any finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority binds him in subsequent proceedings. He also submitted that the principle of res-judicata applies with full force even to the ceiling proceedings under the Act of 1960 and any finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority binds him in subsequent proceedings. He submitted that once the objections raised by Labh Singh were found to be genuine and correct and the lands which had been alienated on the basis of the sale-deeds were excluded from his holding, same can not again be considered, as part of the holding of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the various judgments, details of which are given below : (1) Devendra Nath Singh (Dead), through legal heirs & Ors. v. Civil Judge & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 2264 , para-3 of which reads as under: "3. Having examined the provisions of Section 13-A and Section 38-B of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that under Section 13-A the Prescribed Authority has the power to reopen the matter within two years from the date of the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14 to rectify any apparent mistake which was there on the face of the record. That power will certainly not include the power to entertain fresh evidence and re-examine the question as to whether the two sons, namely, Hamendra and Shailendra were major or not. The power under Section 38-B merely indicates that if any finding or decision was there by any ancillary forum prior to the commencement of the said Section in respect of a matter which is governed by the Ceiling Act then such findings will not operate as res judicata in a proceeding under the Act. That would not cover the case where findings have already reached its finality in the very case under the Act. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the question of majority of the two sons in purported exercise of the power under Section 13-A. If the Authority had no jurisdiction, question of waiver of jurisdiction does not arise, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent." (2) In the case of Pyare and Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Camp at Faizabad & Ors., Writ Petition No. 423 of 1977 the following has been observed: "8. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Camp at Faizabad & Ors., Writ Petition No. 423 of 1977 the following has been observed: "8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the rule of res judicata is a technical rule and the technicalities of law should not be allowed to override the interest of justice. The rule of res judicata may be technical, but the basis on which the said rule rests is founded on consideration of public at large that finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by the courts of competent jurisdiction and that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. The principles of constructive res judicata also apply to the writ proceedings. The omission to raise a point in an earlier petition, which could have been raised, would debar the litigant from raising that point in the subsequent petition. (See Devilal Modi Vs. Sales Tax Officer and others, AIR 1965 SC 1150 ); (T. Govindraja Mudaliar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & others, AIR 1973 SC 974 )." 13. He submits that once the finding was recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the land sold by the original tenure holder by means of the sale-deeds, ought to have been excluded, the same lands could not have been clubbed together at the hands of the petitioner, who is legal heir of the original tenure holder, now to declare the said land as falling within the ambit of Act of 1960. 14. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand has opposed the writ-petition. He submits that there is no infirmity in the re-initiation of proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960. The State derived subsequent knowledge that the petitioners were minor at the time, when the sale-deeds were entered into and also on the date of coming into force of the Act of 1960 and, consequently, from the face of it is evident that the said sale-deeds were fraud and subterfuge, with a view to evade the clutches of Act of 1960. He also submits that once it is shown that all the grand-children of the original tenure holder to whom the lands were transferred, were minor, then it would be assumed that they fell into the family of the petitioner and, consequently, all their holding have to be considered collectively as per the provisions of Section 2(7) of the Act of 1960. 15. The said argument has been contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that this aspect was considered partially in the proper perspective by the Appellate Authority, and only Indra Pal, who was born in 1949, has been held to be a major and 2.00 Hectares of land has been excluded as such. He submits that even the findings recorded by the Appellate Court in this regard are arbitrary and illegal. In his written statement, he clearly indicated that though Indra Pal was born in 1949, while Devendra/Dil Binder Kaur was born in 1952, Gur Bachan Kaur was born in1954; Gurmeet Singh was born in 1955 and, hence all the said persons were major on the date of coming into force of the same Act, i.e., 08.06.1973 and even the finding in this regard recorded by the Appellate Authority is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to records. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 17. The main controversy, which has engaged attention of this Court is as to whether notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 can be issued again with regard to the same holding, whereas previously the notices have been discharged, after receiving the objections of the original tenure holder, and the land has been found to be not within the ambit of Act of 1960. In the present case, undoubtedly notices were issued previously to the original tenure holder Labh Singh and on his submitting an objection, stating that the said land had been sold prior to the cut-of-date by means of seven registered sale-deeds and the land remaining with the original tenure holder does not fall within the Act of 1960, the Prescribed Authority duly examined the said objections and dropped the proceedings. The only difference, which has been made since issue of the first notice, is that Labh Singh has died in the meanwhile and now the notice has been issued to his son, the present petitioner for the same holding. The only difference, which has been made since issue of the first notice, is that Labh Singh has died in the meanwhile and now the notice has been issued to his son, the present petitioner for the same holding. Now the stand of the respondents has changed dramatically and whereas on the first occasion they did not challenge or assailed the validity of the sale-deeds, now they have said that the said sale-deeds have been entered only to evade the provisions of the Act of 1960. It is stated that the vendees were minor at the time of execution of the sale-deeds and the Deeds have been entered only with a view to reduce the original holding of the original tenure holder. The said grounds raised by the State have been accepted by both the parties. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hands, has submitted that apart from the fact that he notice cannot be issued again for the same holding, it is also stated that once a finding has been returned, the validity of the sale-deeds entered into prior to the cut-of-date cannot be examined by the Prescribed Authority. In support of his submissions he has relied upon a judgment in the case of Ramadhar Singh v. Prescribed Authority & Ors., 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 702, wherein the following has been held : "……… The existence of the sale deed being not disputed and it having taken place, as said before, on February 24, 1969, prior to the appointed day that is January 24, 1971, the inquiry regarding the validity of the sale deed under sub-section (6) of Section 5 was totally misplaced. Thereunder, as it appears to us, the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to be put the validity of the sale deed to test since his jurisdiction arose only when the deed of transfer had been effected on or after the appointed day. Not only the first and the appellate authority under the Act persisted in that view, but the High Court too proceeded on that basis. Not only the first and the appellate authority under the Act persisted in that view, but the High Court too proceeded on that basis. The effort of the appellant to have it declared that the authorities had no jurisdiction to invalidate the sale under sub-section (6) of Section 5 when read with Explanation II to sub-section (1) of Section 5 also was a futile attempt because the High Court followed the path, as did the authorities under the Act, and rejected the writ petition. We are of the view that this was a wholly erroneous approach. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 did not confer jurisdiction on the authorities to determine the validity of the sale and if that is so, any finding of theirs as to the contents of the sale, is of no assistance. In the result the appeal must succeed. Accordingly, allowing the same we set aside all the orders of the authorities below as also that of the High Court. No costs." 19. He further relies upon a judgment of this court in the case of Indrapal Singh & Ors. v. Prescribed Authority, Meerut & Anr., 2007 (103) RD 102, wherein the following has been observed : "8. The Supreme Court in Ram Adhar Singh v. The Prescribed Authority and others,' has held that no inquiry regarding the va-lidity of the sale-deed under section 5(6) of the Act could be made with regard to the genuineness of the sale-deed executed prior to 24.1.1971. The Supreme Court further held that appellate authority had no jurisdiction to put the validity of the sale-deed to test since its jurisdiction arose only when the deed of transfer had been effected on or after the appointed day, i.e., 24.1.1971. Consequently, this Court holds that the prescribed authority could not consider the genuineness of the sale-deed dated 9.1.1970 and the land transferred vide sale-deed is liable to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner." 20. Rebutting the arguments of the petitioner, it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that in the present proceedings the sale-deeds cannot be relied upon and read, as sought by the petitioner and all the lands, which have been alienated by the said sale-deeds, in fact should be taken and added as part of the original holdings of the petitioner and subjected to the provisions of the Act of 1960. 21. 21. This court has also examined the said contention. Apart from the fact that the sale-deeds were presented before the Prescribed Authority, wherein he had issued notice in 1970 to the original tenure holder Sri Labh Singh and he had dropped the proceedings, accepting the sale-deeds and excluded the lands from the original holdings of Labh Singh. The validity of the sale-deeds, which were entered into prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1960 could not have been looked into. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramadhar Singh (supra) lays down the law in this regard and there cannot be any deviation from the same. 22. In the light of the above, this court also finds itself bound to follow the aforesaid provision enunciated by the Supreme Court and accordingly it was impermissible for the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority to dispute the said sale-deeds in the present case before it. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that considering the fact that the proceedings were hit by the principle of res-judicata, as the same lands were subjected to the proceedings under the Act of 1960 in the year 1975 and they have been excluded from the holdings of the original tenure holder, the same land cannot again be subjected to the Act of 1960, and a different view taken by the Prescribed Authority. 23. In the light of the above, the writ-petitions are allowed. The orders dated 22.06.1993 and 22.06.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority are set aside.