Shiv Kali Devi vs State
2017 Latest Caselaw 2507 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved.
 
Reportable.
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 946 of 1992
 

 
Petitioner :- Shiv Kali Devi
 
Respondent :- State
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Misra,A.P.Mishra,Abhijeet Mukherji,Ashok Kumar Pandey,Dr. G.S.D.Mishra,Rajiv Mishra,Shartendu Shekhar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard Shri Rajiv Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 and petitioner no.2/1/2. Shri Abhijeet Mukherjee, learned Advocate for petitioner No.2/1 namely Aditya Narain Misra and petitioner no.2/1/1 namely Ashok Kumar Misra and Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

By means of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 2.4.1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad and the order dated 12.7.1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad, Division Allahabad in a proceeding under The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

At the very outset, Shri Rajiv Mishra and Shri Abhijeet Mukherjee raised a dispute regarding nomination of the trustees of Shri Shiv Kali Devi Trust as per the trust deed. Rival claims were pleaded to raise a dispute that after death of Tej Narain Misra who would succeed as trustee. Looking to the nature of controversy at hand, this Court does not propose to go into the dispute of trustee as the said question is alien to the present proceeding.

The relevant facts as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, was issued on 12.8.1974 in the name of Shri Shiv Kali Devi Trust along with the statement prepared under Sub Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. The Case No.236 of 1974-75 (State v. Shiv Kali Trust) was registered. In response to the said notice, the petitioner No.1 namely Shri Shiv Kali Devi Trust filed objections dated 26.8.1974 before the Prescribed Authority.

The contention of the petitioner is that vide order dated 30.12.1981, the Prescribed Authority, on the objections taken by the tenure holder, discharged the notice under Section 10(1) of the Act. Another notice in the year 1982 was issued in the name of the petitioner No.2 namely Tej Narain Misra, in his individual capacity. The said notice was never served upon him and ex-parte proceedings were conducted by the Prescribed Authority. Vide order dated 31.12.1982 in case No. 25 of 1982-83 (State v. Tej Narain Misra), total area of approximately 100.84 Acres (118-14-17) was declared surplus . The matter was taken up in appeal by the petitioner No.2 which was supported by a delay condonation application and was registered as Misc. Case No.235 of 1983. After condonation of delay, regular number was allotted namely Revenue Appeal No.604 of 1983 (Tej Narain Misra v. State). The said appeal was allowed by the III Additional District Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 31.1.1985 on the ground that the land in dispute belonged to Shiv Kali Devi Trust and no notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the trustees. While setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority, a direction was given to issue fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act to the trustees of Shiv Kali Devi Trust and then to decide the matter in accordance with law.

The contention is that after remand by the appellate court Ceiling Case No.25 of 1982-83 (State v. Tej Narain Misra) stood revived. However, no further proceeding was conducted, thereafter, by the Prescribed Authority. Rather the Prescribed Authority issued three fresh notices dated 6.1.1986 under Section 10(2) of the Act. One was in the name of Satya Narain Misra, Dr. Vishwanath Misra, Aditya Narain Misra and Tej Narain Misra as trustees of Shiv Kali Devi Trust. Second notice was issued in the name of Satya Narain Misra, trustee of Shiv Kali Devi Trust and third notice of the same date was issued in the name of Dr. Vishwanath Misra, trustee of Shiv Kali Devi Trust. Case No.2 of 1986-87 (State v. Tej Narain Misra) was registered. In response to the said notices, Aditya Narain Misra, brother of petitioner No.2 filed objection on 4.6.1986. Petitioner No.2 Tej Narain Misra filed his objection on 9.2.1987 in response of the said notice dated 6.1.1986. By the order dated 2.4.1987, the Prescribed Authority had affirmed the notices. The appeal filed by Shiv Kali Devi Trust and Tej Narain Misra jointly namely Revenue Appeal No.86 of 1987 was dismissed on 12.7.1988 by the appellate authority namely the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Hence this petition.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a specific objection was taken on behalf of the Shiv Kali Devi Trust that the disputed property was the property belonging to the public charitable trust which had been created as early as on 4.2.1959 by a registered deed. Two-third portion of Plot No.1-189 measuring 839-9-0 was donated for the cause of the trust by the owners namely Shri Ram Sewak Misra, Smt. Shiv Kali Devi wife of Shri Ram Sewak Misra and Aditya Narain Misra and Tej Narain Misra sons of Shri Ram Sewak Misra. The description of the property i.e. area of the plots has been mentioned in the trust deed. The trust was created for running a charitable dispensary for providing free medicines and medical aid to the poor. It was narrated that a building dedicated to the trust was constructed on a plot in the name of Shiv Kali Aushdhalaya. To meet the expenditures to run the dispensary, the land in dispute was donated to the trust. The trust deed discloses that from the proceeds of the donated land, the expenditures for payment to doctors; to maintain the stock of medicine and overall management would be borne. The said trust would be registered as Shri Shiv Kali Devi Trust through Managing Trustees and the name of the trust be recorded in the revenue records by expunging the names of tenure holders.

The contention is that in furtherance of the cause/object of the trust, names of the tenure holders were expunged from the land in dispute and it has been recorded in the name of the trust. The exemption under Section 6(1)(f) of the Act is, therefore, to be provided to the petitioners and the land donated to the trust was exempted from ceiling. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for adjudication on the issue afresh in the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority inasmuch as the question as to whether the disputed property was a trust property had been adjudicated vide order dated 30.12.1981 whereby the notice dated 12.8.1974 under Section 10(2) of the Act issued in the name of the trust was discharged by the Prescribed Authority. The issue once settled could not have been reopened by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed pursuant to the notices issued in the year 1986, in the names of the trustees.

So far as second the notice issued in the year 1982 in the name of Shri Tej Narayan Misra in his individual capacity is concerned, the adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31.12.1982 has been set aside by the appellate authority in the order dated 31.1.1985. It has categorically recorded a finding that the land in dispute belonged to Shiv Kali Devi Trust.

On remittal vide order dated 31.12.1985 in appeal, the Prescribed Authority found that the adjudication of the property being trust property had already been made and as such Case No.25 of 1982-83 (State v. Tej Narain Misra) did not proceed further and no notices were issued to the trustees.

The proceedings of Case No.2 of 1986-87 was wrongly initiated by the Prescribed Authority without looking to the fact that there had been an adjudication on the question of the disputed property being trust property. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in Devendra Nath Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Civil Judge & Ors. reported in 2000 (91) RD 28. With the strength of the aforesaid pronouncement, it is submitted that the power given to the Prescribed Authority under Section 13-A of the Act for redetermination of surplus land is confined only to rectify the mistake apparent on the fact of record that too within a period of two years from the date of the notification under Section 14(4) of the Act. This power cannot be used to entertain fresh evidence and re-examine the question/determination under the Act which has attained finality. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, had no jurisdiction to reopen the question of the disputed property being trust property.

These submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are strongly repelled by Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State with reference to an affidavit dated 9.9.2013 of the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad filed in compliance of the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by this Court as also from the original records produced in the Court.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the State that the first notice dated 12.8.1974 issued in the name of Shiv Kali Devi Trust was registered as Ceiling Case No.236 of 1974 wherein order dated 30.12.1981 was passed. The copy of the order dated 30.12.1981 filed by the petitioners as ''Annexure-7' to the writ petition and ''Annexure SA-5' to the supplementary affidavit (filed on 5.4.2012) are not the correct copy of the order. It is submitted that after going through the original record namely the file of Ceiling Case No.236 of 1974, it was found that no such order exist in the case file rather the order appended by the petitioners (with the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit) is a copy of a piece of paper which was found loose by the Prescribed Authority in the case file. This fact has been duly recorded in the order dated 30.12.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bara, Allahabad. The correct copy of the order dated 30.12.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority along with the order sheet of the ceiling case have been appended as 'Annexure-1' to the affidavit filed on 9.9.2013 by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad. It is recorded therein that the notice dated 12.8.1974 was cancelled as the complete description of the property of tenure holders and their benami lands were not included in the said notice. A direction was, therefore, given to the Tehsildar to inspect all records pertaining to the property allegedly belonging to the tenure holder and prepare a fresh statement under Section 10(1) of the Act in accordance with law. A direction was also given to issue fresh notice within a period of one week.

It is recorded by the Prescribed Authority that on an enquiry made by the Prescribed Authority, the Tehsildar had reported that some other lands of the tenure holders had been left from description in the notice. The trust was created so as to get away from the ceiling proceedings whereas the lands were actually in possession of the tenure holders.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the order dated 30.12.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority categorically records that a typed copy of the order dated 30.12.1981 was found in the case file which was neither signed by the Prescribed Authority nor bears signature or thumb impression of any other person. The contention made on behalf of the trustee that the question of property belonging to trust had been adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority and the order had been passed, but by accidental omission it was not signed, could not be accepted. It is recorded in the order dated 30.12.1981 (appended with the affidavit dated 9.9.2013 of the ADM City) that the file/records of the proceeding was manipulated and moreover, the typed copy of the alleged order cannot be said to be an adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority.

Thus as far as the notice dated 12.8.1974 was concerned, there was no adjudication on the issue of land belonging to trust.

As far as second notice of 1982 is concerned, the appellate authority has allowed appeal vide order dated 31.1.1985 for the reason that the notice was issued in individual capacity and not in the name of the trustees. In furtherance of the directions given by the appellate authority, fresh notices were issued in the name of trustees on 6.1.1986. It is submitted that the Ceiling Case No.25 of 1982 was renumbered as Case No.62/25 of 1985 and was sent from the court of Prescribed Authority, Bara to the Court of Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad. On receipt therein, it was renumbered as Case No.2 of 1986-87. After hearing the parties, the notice issued on 6.1.1986 was confirmed vide order dated 2.4.1987 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad. The comparative chart showing details of the plots under the notice dated 12.8.1974 (Ceiling Case No.236 of 1974) ; the notice dated 3.5.1982 (Ceiling Case No.25 of 1982) and the notices dated 6.1.1986 issued in the (Ceiling Case No.25 of 1982 renumbered as Case No.62/25 of 1985-82, renumbered as Case No.2 of 1986-87) has been appended as ''Annexure No.3' to the affidavit dated 9.9.2013.

It is admitted position therein that there was difference in the total number of plots and the total area of lands belonging to the tenure holders in these notices. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 30.9.2013, the records were inquired and it was found that approximately 350-6-18 area of land had been left from adjudication under the Ceiling Act. The reports dated 21.9.2013 and 22.10.2013 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bara, Allahabad have been filed along with the affidavit dated 31.10.2013 filed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad to state that fresh notices are under preparation. The liability for manipulation of the ceiling records has been placed upon the Lekhpals who were posted at the relevant point of time in Tehsil Karchana.

It is noteworthy that this Court in the order dated 7.9.2012 has recorded that the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act, 1960 had deliberately not concluded the proceedings against Tej Narain Misra despite the remand being made in the year 1985. Fresh notices dated 6.1.1986 had been placed with the file of Case No.25 of 1982-83 initiated against Tej Narain Misra. A direction was given to the Prescribed Authority to examine the records and explain the factual position and file its affidavit disclosing the true and correct position.

The original records were produced before this Court on 20.11.2012 and the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Mishra was permitted to examine the original records in the Court. After going through the original record and the affidavits filed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad, it was observed by this Court in the order dated 30.7.2013 that there was difference in the area of land in the notices issued to Shiv Kali Devi Trust and Tej Narayan Mishra in his individual capacity. A direction was, therefore, given to the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad who was present in the Court to make an enquiry and inform as to the exact difference in the plot numbers and area covered in two notices issued in the name of the trust and the notice issued to Tej Narayan Mishra in his individual capacity in the year 1982 as also to the notices issued to the trustees of the said trust in the year 1986.

Compliance affidavit filed by Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad dated 9.9.2013 was served upon Shri Rajiv Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the order dated 9.9.2013, this Court has recorded that there was increase in the number of plots in the second notice but the total area of land as shown in the notice dated 12.8.1974 was reduced in the second notice of the year 1982. area. The reason for increase of plot numbers but reduction of area in the second notice was to be explained.

Pursuant thereto, the affidavit dated 28.9.2013 was filed. Considering the fact that approximately 350 Bighas and 6 Biswa 18 Dhurs of land had been left in the notice issued against the trust, by the order dated 30.9.2013 of this Court, the Additional District Magistrate was directed to find out the responsible person and to inform the proposed action in the matter. Shri Rajiv Mishra, learned Advocate was granted time to file reply to the said affidavit. Despite time granted by this Court, no reply has been filed by the petitioners to the affidavits dated 9.9.2013, 28.9.2013 and 31.10.2013 of the respondents. The original records produced by the learned Standing Counsel have been inspected by Shri Rajiv Mishra, however, no reply has been filed till date.

Absolutely, no explanation has been offered by the petitioners as to how they got the copy of the alleged order dated 30.12.1981 appended as ''Annexure -7' to the writ petition and ''Annexure SA-5' to the supplementary affidavit, when it was not signed by the Prescribed Authority.

Considering the abovenoted facts, this Court finds that the proceeding under the Ceiling Act was initiated with the notice dated 12.8.1974 issued by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the Act in the name of Shiv Kali Devi Trust. The said case was registered as Case No.236 of 1974-75 and was decided vide order dated 30.12.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bara, Allahabad. While cancelling the said notice, the Prescribed Authority, Bara, Allahabad directed the Tehsildar to make fresh enquiry and issue fresh notices within a period of one week. A photocopy of the order sheet dated 30.12.1981 recording the directions given to the Tehsilder to make an enquiry into the records of the trust and issue fresh notices within one week, has been appended with the affidavit dated 9.9.2013 filed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad.

It appears that instead of issuing notices in the name of trustees, fresh notice was issued in the name of Tej Narain Misra in his individual capacity in the year 1982. On the objection taken by him that the disputed property was belonging to a trust namely Shiv Kali Devi Trust, the notice issued in the name of Tej Narain Misra was dropped in appeal namely Revenue Appeal No.604 of 1983 (Tej Narain Misra v. State of U.P.) vide order dated 31.1.1985 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Allahabad whereas a direction was given to issue fresh notices to the trustees.

After remittal, Case No.25 of 1982-83 stood revived, the notices in the year 1986 i.e. dated 6.1.1986 were issued pursuant to the directions given by the Prescribed Authority, Bara, Allahabad vide order dated 30.12.1981 as also the directions of the District Judge, Allahabad in the order dated 31.1.1985.

Having perused the order dated 31.12.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority pursuant to the notice dated 12.8.1974 and the order dated 30.1.1985 passed by the District Judge in Revenue Appeal No.604 of 1983 arising out of Case No.25 of 1982-83 (State v. Tej Narayan Mishra), this Court finds that the question as to whether the disputed property was the property belonging to trust namely Shiv Kali Devi Trust had not been adjudicated earlier. On the objection taken by Tej Narayan Mishra, notice dated 3.5.1982 served upon him was discharged vide order dated 30.1.1985 passed by the appellate authority. As no fresh notice was issued to the trustees, pursuant to the direction of the appellate authority and in continuation of the directions of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.12.1981, fresh notices were issued on 6.1.1986 in the name of the trustees by the Prescribed Authority. The order dated 2.4.1987 passed by it, therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The notice dated 6.1.1986 cannot be said to have been issued under Section 13-A of the Act 1960 as submitted by the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the concluded issue while making redetermination of surplus land under Section 13-A of the Act is misconceived argument. The provisions of Section 13-A of the Act have no application at all in the facts of the present case.

It is noteworthy that Shri Tej Narayan Mishra filed an objection on 9.2.1987 to the notice dated 6.1.1986 issued to him as trustee of Shiv Kali Devi Trust, there is no whisper of the adjudication by the Prescribed Authority, Bara, Allahabad vide order dated 31.12.1981. Only objection taken therein was that with the creation of trust, the land described in the notice became trust property and, therefore, was exempted from the Ceiling Act. It was further stated that individual share of the objector's land has also been included in the details of the property with the notice served upon him. It was also stated in ''paragraph-10' of the said objection that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were started against the objector but the notice was quashed on the finding that the objector had no surplus area to be declared vacant.

This fact also substantiates the opinion of the Court that there was no adjudication on the question of disputed land being trust property. Moreover, the objections regarding jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority in proceeding with the notice dated 6.1.1986 has been taken for the first time in the present petition. For the above noted reasons, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority cannot be sustained.

On merits, it has been held by the Prescribed Authority that the disputed land has never been transferred to the beneficiary of the trust that is the dispensary and was actually held and cultivated by the trustees namely Aditya Narain Misra and Tej Narain Misra for their personal gains. As per the audited account of the dispensary filed by the objector Tej Narain Misra from the year 1966-67 till 1972-73, it was apparent that maximum income from the disputed property which had been received in the account of the dispensary was Rs.1000/- per annum. The land belonging to the trust property was 2/3rd of the total area of 838 Bigha 9 Biswa. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, disbelieved that the entire proceeds of the land were being used for charitable purposes to meet the object of the trust as per the trust deed dated 4.2.1959. The appellate authority has further gone into the question of registration of the trust deed and has recorded that as per Section 6 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1882'), the trust can be created only by way of a registered deed. The trust deed dated 4.2.1959 though was presented in the office of the Sub Registrar on the said date but was returned back on 1.7.1959, after registration. The exemption under Section 6(1)(f) of the Act, therefore, was not available.

These findings are challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the assertion that no exception could have been taken by the ceiling authorities of the registered deed dated 4.2.1959. The trust was created with the execution of the trust deed on 4.2.1959. Any delay in registration thereof would be no consequence.

As far as the income of dispensary is concerned, it is contended that the disputed lands are Rocky lands lying in Shankargarh area unfit for agricultural purposes. Meagre income from the disputed lands can not be a valid consideration for rejection of the case of the petitioner that it was a trust property.

Before dealing with the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to go through the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Trust Act, 1882 which reads as under:-

"5. Trust of immovable property.-No trust in relation to immoveable property is valid unless declared by a non-testamentary instrument in writing signed by the author or the trustee and registered, or by the will of the author of the trust or of the trustee.

Trust of moveable property.-No trust relating to movable property is valid unless declared as aforesaid, or unless the ownership of the property is transferred to the trustee.

6. Creation of trust.-Subject ot the provisions of section 5, a trust is created when the author of the trust indicates with reasonable certainty by any words or acts, (a) an intention on his part to create thereby a trust, (b) the purpose of the trust, (c) the beneficiary, and (d) the trust, property, and (unless the trust is declared by will or the author of the trust is himself to be the trustee) transfers the trust property to the trustee."

A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the trust is created under Section 6 of the Act, 1882, subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1882 when the author of the trust indicates his intention to create a trust with reasonable certainity by words or acts, specifying the purpose of the trust, the name of the beneficiary, the property to be transferred to the trustees. Section 5 further says that the trust in relation to the immovable property would be valid only when is declared either by a non testamentary registered instrument in writing or by the will of the author of the trust or of the trustees.

Thus, it is clear that the trust can be created only after the transfer of property from the author of the trust or the trustees to the beneficiary of the trust is complete. The transfer is complete only on registration of the document. Admittedly, the trust deed was presented for registration on 4.2.1959 and was returned on 1.7.1959 after registration. Prior to 1.7.1959, therefore, there was no valid creation of the trust. The exemption under Section 6(1)(f) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, therefore, could not have been granted.

The Apex Court in the case of Ram Saran Lal & Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer & Ors. reported in AIR 1961 SC 1747 has held that Section 47 of the Registration Act does not have any application to the process of completion of registration nor has anything to do with the completion of sale when the instrument is one of sale. Section 47 of the Registration Act only permits that the document once registered would be operative from a date which may be an earlier date from the date of its registration. The object of this Section is to decide as to which of the two or more registered instrument in respect of the same property is to have effect in case of a right of pre-emption is claimed. It has nothing to do with the completion of the sale.

In the case of Hiralal Agarwal etc. v. Rampadarath Singh & Ors. etc. reported in AIR 1969 SC 244, in the matter under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962, the question came up before the Apex Court of granting the right of reconveyance to the purchaser of the land under Section 16(3) of the said Act. The claim therein was on the basis of a sale deed dated 9.10.1964.

It was held by the Apex Court therein that the application though was filed within the time prescribed by the Section, however, under the relevant provision, the right of reconveyance has not been accrued to the purchaser prior to 30.11.1964 and that the Collector had no jurisdiction on that date to accept the said application. It was held that till the date of presentation of the application i.e. 26.11.1964 under Section 16(3) of the aforementioned Act, no transaction took place as the sale deed was not registered. The sale is complete only on completion of registration and issuance of certificate under Section 60 read with Section 61 of the Registration Act.

Following the decision in Ram Saran Lal (Supra) therein, it was held therein that the right of pre-emption under the Statute did not accrue till the transaction became effective through the registered deed. In a suit for pre-emption, the plaintiff must show that the right had accrued at the time when he exercised it.

Applying the same principle in Har Narain (Dead) by LRs. v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.) reported in (2010) 13 SCC 128, it was held that the legal fiction created by Section 47 of the Registration Act does not come into play before the actual registration of the document takes place. Though the registration of a deed would relate back to the date of execution, the transfer cannot be termed as complete until its registration and it becomes effective only once it stands registered.

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Saran Lal (Supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that the creation of trust is complete only with the transfer of the property by the creator(s) or by the trustees to the beneficiaries of the trust. In the instance case, as the trust was created with the registration of the document after 1.5.1959, the exemption under Section 6(1)(f) of the Act was not available to the petitioners.

There is another angle of the matter, a categorical finding of fact has been recorded that the disputed property has never been transferred to the trust and it is still being held and used by the trustees for their own benefits. No material at all has been brought by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority to establish that the transfer was complete prior to 1.5.1959 and further that the disputed land was not being utilized by the trustees for their own benefits rather it was being held by them as trustees only for the purpose of beneficiary.

Thus, from all angles, the order dated 2.4.1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector, Allahabad and the order dated 12.7.1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad, Dvision Allahabad passed under the Ceiling Act, 1960 do not warrant any intereference.

Lastly, it is submitted by Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the discrepancy in the notices issued to the trust and the petitioner herein have been found and identified. A direction has already been issued to the Prescribed Authority for preparation of fresh notices for the remaining area which has left adjudication. A direction is, therefore, issued to the District Magistrate, Allahabad to look into the matter and direct the Competent Authority to issue notices for the remaining/leftover area and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law, at the earliest.

With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

Order Date :- 19.7.2017

Jyotsana