Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1246 (ALL)

Devendra Nath Tandon v. State of U. P.

2025-10-14

IRSHAD ALI

body2025
JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. The instant writ petition arises from proceedings initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in respect of the agricultural holdings of Sri Onkar Nath Tandon and his wife Smt. Tarawati, whose three sons are the present petitioners, all residents of District Sitapur. 3. Sri Onkar Nath Tandon died on 3.9.1970, survived by his widow Smt. Tarawati and three sons, namely Devendra Nath Tandon, Shailendra Nath Tandon, and Kamlesh Nath Tandon (the present petitioners). The Ceiling Act was brought into force with effect from 8.6.1973. 4. On 20.5.1974, a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to Smt. Tarawati and her three sons. Objections were filed by Smt. Tarawati on 1.7.1974, whereupon the Prescribed Authority, Sitapur, framed issues and recorded evidence. 5. By order dated 1.1.1975, the prescribed authority held that Smt. Tarawati was entitled to 1/4th share and the petitioners jointly to 3/4th share in the holdings of the deceased. It was further held that 2.44 acres of land in Village Gurera was unirrigated and, after giving 18.4 acres to the tenure-holders, 4.25 acres in irrigated terms was declared surplus. 6. The petitioners rely on the fact that in consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer, Sitapur, had already recognized a partition by order dated 21.8.1972, allotting 1/4th share to Smt. Tarawati and 3/4th to the petitioners. This partition was accepted in the ceiling proceedings. 7. On an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, the case was reopened on 15.3.1990. The petitioners contended that as their father had died on 3.9.1970, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of 8.6.1973, his holdings could not be clubbed with those of the widow. They further urged that Smt. Tarawati held only 17.97 acres (12.91 acres in Village Mohammadpur and 5.06 acres in Village Gurera), which was within ceiling limits, and she had transferred portions thereof before 8.6.1973. The remaining lands in Villages Mohammadpur, Gurera, and Ahmadabad belonged exclusively to Onkar Nath Tandon and, after his death, devolved upon the petitioners. 8. They further urged that Smt. Tarawati held only 17.97 acres (12.91 acres in Village Mohammadpur and 5.06 acres in Village Gurera), which was within ceiling limits, and she had transferred portions thereof before 8.6.1973. The remaining lands in Villages Mohammadpur, Gurera, and Ahmadabad belonged exclusively to Onkar Nath Tandon and, after his death, devolved upon the petitioners. 8. The prescribed authority, Sitapur, however, by order dated 16.5.1992, dismissed the objections, holding that the petitioners had failed to establish the death of Onkar Nath Tandon prior to 8.6.1973 and that clubbing of his land with that of Smt. Tarawati was rightly made. 9. Two appeals were preferred before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, where the petitioners relied upon the death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, as well as certified extracts of revenue records. The Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority) dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order of the prescribed authority. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the courts below have misread the evidence and misinterpreted the provisions of the Ceiling Act in clubbing the holdings of late Onkar Nath Tandon with those of his widow. It is urged that succession opened upon the death of Onkar Nath Tandon on 3.9.1970, prior to the enforcement of the Ceiling Act on 8.6.1973, and his three sons became tenure-holders in their own right, while the holdings of Smt. Tarawati remained separate. 11. It is further submitted that the death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon, issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, was a public document within the meaning of law and required no formal proof, particularly when the same was never rebutted by the opposite parties. 12. The petitioners also emphasize that the courts below failed to take into consideration the amendment of Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, whereby widows were placed on par with sons as heirs only by U.P. Act No.27 of 2004 (w.e.f. 23.8.2004). Prior to this amendment, a widow was not included in the category of heirs alongside sons, and hence the holdings of Smt. Tarawati could not have been clubbed with those of her deceased husband. 13. It is thus the case of the petitioners that the findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate courts are unsustainable, having been arrived at by ignoring binding evidence and by misapplying statutory provisions. 13. It is thus the case of the petitioners that the findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate courts are unsustainable, having been arrived at by ignoring binding evidence and by misapplying statutory provisions. Consequently, the orders declaring surplus land are liable to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders dated 6.5.1992, passed by the prescribed authority and 15.5.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow have rightly been passed and they do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 15. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 16. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to Smt. Tarawati and her three sons. Objections were filed by Smt. Tarawati on 1.7.1974, whereupon the prescribed authority, Sitapur, framed issues and recorded evidence. Vide order dated 1.1.1975, the prescribed authority held that Smt. Tarawati was entitled to 1/4th share and the petitioners jointly to 3/4th share in the holdings of the deceased. It was further held that 2.44 acres of land in Village Gurera was unirrigated and, after giving 18.4 acres to the tenure-holders, 4.25 acres in irrigated terms was declared surplus. 17. The Consolidation Officer, Sitapur, had already recognized a partition by order dated 21.8.1972, allotting 1/4th share to Smt. Tarawati and 3/4th to the petitioners. This partition was accepted in the ceiling proceedings. On an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, the case was reopened on 15.3.1990. The petitioners contended that as their father had died on 3.9.1970, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of 8.6.1973, his holdings could not be clubbed with those of the widow. They further urged that Smt. Tarawati held only 17.97 acres (12.91 acres in Village Mohammadpur and 5.06 acres in Village Gurera), which was within ceiling limits, and she had transferred portions thereof before 8.6.1973. The remaining lands in Villages Mohammadpur, Gurera, and Ahmadabad belonged exclusively to Onkar Nath Tandon and, after his death, devolved upon the petitioners. 18. The prescribed authority, Sitapur, by order dated 16.5.1992, dismissed the objections, holding that the petitioners had failed to establish the death of Onkar Nath Tandon prior to 8.6.1973 and that clubbing of his land with that of Smt. Tarawati was rightly made. 18. The prescribed authority, Sitapur, by order dated 16.5.1992, dismissed the objections, holding that the petitioners had failed to establish the death of Onkar Nath Tandon prior to 8.6.1973 and that clubbing of his land with that of Smt. Tarawati was rightly made. Two appeals were preferred before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, where the petitioners relied upon the death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, as well as certified extracts of revenue records. The Additional Commissioner (appellate authority) dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order of the prescribed authority. 19. The courts below have misread the evidence and misinterpreted the provisions of the Ceiling Act in clubbing the holdings of late Onkar Nath Tandon with those of his widow. The succession opened upon the death of Onkar Nath Tandon on 3.9.1970, prior to the enforcement of the Ceiling Act on 8.6.1973, and his three sons became tenure-holders in their own right, while the holdings of Smt. Tarawati remained separate. Due to non-consideration of this aspect of the matter, the impugned orders suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be set aside. 20. The death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon, issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, was a public document within the meaning of law and required no formal proof, particularly when the same was never rebutted by the opposite parties. Due to non- consideration of death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon, the order is per-se illegal and is liable to be set aside. 21. The courts below failed to take into consideration the amendment of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 , whereby widows were placed on par with sons as heirs only by U.P. Act No.27 of 2004. Prior to this amendment, a widow was not included in the category of heirs alongside sons, and hence the holdings of Smt. Tarawati could not have been clubbed with those of her deceased husband. Non-consideration of this aspect of the matter too makes the impugned orders perverse in nature and hence, they are liable to be set aside. 22. The findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate courts are unsustainable, having been arrived at by ignoring binding evidence and by misapplying statutory provisions. Consequently, the orders declaring surplus land are liable to be set aside. 23. 22. The findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate courts are unsustainable, having been arrived at by ignoring binding evidence and by misapplying statutory provisions. Consequently, the orders declaring surplus land are liable to be set aside. 23. In view of the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 6.5.1992, passed by the prescribed authority, Sitapur and 15.5.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 6.5.1992, passed by the prescribed authority, Sitapur and 15.5.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow are hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed 24. The matter is remanded back to the prescribed authority to take into consideration the medical certificate issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow as well as the provisions of amended Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.