Som Nath Khanna And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.Through Collector Kheri ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11409 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Som Nath Khanna And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.Through Collector Kheri ... on 10 October, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63049
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - C No. - 3000025 of 2005   
 
   Som Nath Khanna And 3 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P.Through Collector Kheri And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Hari Om Singh, Mohammad Aslam Khan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
  
 
Alongwith 
 
 
 
 WRIT - C No. - 3000026 of 2005    
 
   Vipul Nanda And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P.Through Collector Kheri And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Hari Om Singh, Mohammad Aslam Khan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 6   
 
 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.      

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan for the petitioners and Shri Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This order shall decide the two writ petitions i.e. Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2025 and Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2025.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall refer to the facts from Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 and where required the facts from Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 shall be noticed.

4. The facts of Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 are as under:-

Original petitioner no.1, namely Som Nath Khanna was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No.98 Kha measuring 0.882 hectares and Plot No.101 measuring 4.501 hectares, situate in village Tulipur, Tehsil Palia and District Kheri. The original petitioner no.2 Madan Lal similarly was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No.96 measuring 4.29 hectares which was part of Khata No.27. The petitioner no.3 Smt. Sangita Khanna, daughter of Som Nath Khanna was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No.98 Ka area 0.697 hectares Plot No.99 Ka measuring 0.930 hectares part of Khata No.48, situate in village Tulipur Pargana Palia, Tehsil Palia, District Kheri. In so far as the original petitioner No.4 Sai Kiran is concerned, he inherited the property (being the son of Som Nath Khanna). The land of Plot No.97 area 2.416 hectares Plot No.99 Kha measuring 1.534 hectares in village Tulipur, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Palia, District Kheri was originally recorded in the name of Smt. Amrit Versha. After the death of Smt. Amrit Versha, Sai Kiran petitioner no.4 succeeded to the said land of Smt. Amrit Versha.

5. Fact of W-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 are as under:-

Goverdhan Lal Nanda father of the petitioners of W-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No.95 measuring 2.3838 hectares in village Tulipur, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Palia and District Kheri. This plot of land was purchased by Goverdhan Lal Nanda by means of sale deed dated 09.04.1990.

Goverdhan Lal Nanda died in the year 1988 and the said plot of land came to be inherited by his widow Ms. Asha Nanda and the present petitioners.

In the year 1990 when Goverdhan Lal Nanda is said to have purchased the land, the present petitioners, namely, Vipul Nanda and Punit Nand were majors and they too purchased land by separate sale deeds relating to Plot No.94 part of Khata No.25 measuring an area of 2.529 hectares. The present petitioners, namely Vipul Nanda and P:unit Nanda were cultivating their land separately whereas Goverdhan Lal Nanda their father was cultivating his land separately.

On the death of Goverdhan Lal Nanda, the present petitioners inherited 2/3rd rights in the plot of Goverdhan Lal Nanda.

6. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the proceedings under the U.P. imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1960 (in short the Act of 1960) commenced with the notice dated 12.12.2002 issued under section 10(2) to Ms.. Asha Nanda alleging that she was occupying an area of 23.267 hectares and out of which 15.987 hectares was proposed to be declares as surplus. In the aforesaid notice, the area shown in the hands of Ms. Asha Nanda was both in respect of Plot No.94 and Plot No.95. In the said notice, it was further alleged that Ms. Asha Nanda also ostensibly held Plot No.98 Kha and Plot No.101 which was recorded in the name of Som Nath Khanna.

7. It was further alleged that Ms. Asha Nanda also ostensibly held Plot No.96 which was recorded in the name of Madan Lal and similarly it was further alleged that Ms. Asha Nanda also ostensibly held Plot No.99 Ka and 08 Ka which was recorded in the name of Ms. Sangita Khanna. Similarly the land which was recorded in the name of Sai Kiran was also clubbed and was alleged to be ostensibly held by Ms. Asha Nanda.

8. On the receipt of the notice under section 10(2) of the Act 1960 Ms. Asha Nanda filed her objections and had pointed out that she had inherited only 1/3rd share in Plot No.95 after the death of her husband Goverdhan Lal Nanda and it was further stated that she is neither in possession nor held any land ostensibly or otherwise rather their recorded tenure holder were individual tenure holder, namely, Som Nath Khaanna, Madan Lal, Ms. Sangita Khanna and Sai Kiran were its actual owners. It was also stated that the word family as defined in the Act 1960 included the tenure holder himself and his or her spouse and minor children, which included both, minor son and daughter.

9. Similarly Som Nath Khanna, Madan Lal Khanna, Sai Kiran and Ms. Sangita Khanna, they also filed their objections raising similar plea that there were separate tenure holder and their land cannot be clubbed in the hands of Ms. Asha Nanda.

10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the two ceiling cases were consolidated by the Prescribed Authority.

11. Before the Prescribed Authority evidence was led wherein Vipul Nanda the petitioner no.1 in Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 appeared as a witness who proved the sale deed. One Chotey Lal was examined as a witness including Madan Lal who was the petitioner no.2 in Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) 2005. Apart from the sale deeds, several other documents were also produced to indicate that the petitioners of both the writ petitions were in possession of their separate land and they were cultivating their land separately and for the said reason, the land belonging to the respective petitioners could not be clubbed in the hands of Ms. Asha Nanda. As far as the State is concerned, the Area Lekhpal, namely, Hemraj and Raj Kishore Singh were examined and as a part of documentary evidence the Khatauni were also placed on record.

12. Considering the respective contention the Prescribed Authority frames six issues. As far as issues no.1 and 2 were concerned, they related to the fact as to Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda (petitioners of Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005) adult sons of Ms. Asha Nanda whether their land could be clubbed with the holding of Ms. Asha Nanda.

13. The Prescribed Authority decided the aforesaid two issues against the petitioners of Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 on the premise that no evidence was led rather it noticed that when the property was purchased in the year 1990, it could not be indicated that Punit Nanda and Vipul Nand were living separately from their father Goverdhan Lal Nanda and the fact that both of them had purchased the property through their own separate income.

14. Issue no.3 as framed by the Prescribed Authority related to the fact as to whether the land recorded in the names of Madan Lal. Ms. Sangita, Som Nath and Smt. Amrit Versha (petitioners of Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 could be clubbed in the hands of Ms. Asha Nanda for the purposes of determining the ceiling area.

15. The Prescribed Authority while dealing with the aforesaid issue found that the notices which were issued it could not be served on any member of the family of Smt. Amrit Versha rather it was noticed that none of them were available and that the notices could only be served on the manager of Ms. Asha Nanda hence it was held that the land though was in the names of the petitioners of Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 yet it was all under the care and supervision of Ms. Asha Nanda and her Manager and for the said reason all the said land was clubbed with the land of Ms. Asha Nanda.

16. The Prescribed Authority by means of its judgment dated 30.09.2004 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners of both the writ petitions. Being aggrieved, the petitioners of the two writ petitions filed their separate appeals which were also consolidated and decided by a common judgment dated 30.09.2004 whereby the appeals were dismissed and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was upheld.

17. It is in this backdrop that two separate writ petitions were filed bearing Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 by Som Nath Khanna, Madan Lal. Ms. Sangita Khanna and Sai Kiran whereas the Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 was filed Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda.

18. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the two orders primarily on the following premise:-

(i) As far as the writ petition of Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda is concerned, which is the subject matter of Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005, it is stated that the land of Goverdhan Lal Nanda and the land of Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda relate to two separate plots, separate area though purchased on the same date vide two separate sale deeds dated 09.04.1990.

It is stated that on the date of purchase i.e. 09.04.1990 both the petitioners were major in age. They could not be termed to be minor children of Goverdhan Lal Nanda, hence the said land could not be clubbed with that of their mother. It is urged that the rights of Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda were separate than the right of Goverdhan Lal Nanda.

It is further urged that upon the death of Goverdhan Lal Nanda his share in Plot No.95 would devolve on his widow and sons i.e. Ms. Asha Nanda and the petitioners Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda. In their hands the land which could be determined would be the half share in Plot No.94 which was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 09.04.1990 and 1/3rd share in Plot No.95 and that too after the death of their father Goverdhan Lal Nanda and to that extent even if it is clubbed yet it would not breach the ceiling limit, hence to that extent the findings of both Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is patently perverse and cannot be sustained.

(ii) The learned Senior Counsel while attacking the impugned order on behalf of the petitioners of Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 has urged that Som Nath Khanna had purchased Plot No.98 and 101 on 14.06.1968 whereas Madan Lal purchases Plot No.96 vide sale deed dated 21/23-04-1976. Similarly, Ms. Sangita Khanna had purchases parts of Plot No.99 Ka and 98 Kha. It is urged that the area to be determine whether it breaches the ceiling limit or not there has to be proper finding in accordance with law indicating as to how the petitioners breach the ceiling limit of 7.3 hectares.

19. It is further submitted that the findings are based on mere assumption, surmises and conjunctures. It is pointed out that from the perusal of the impugned order it would reveal; that the sole reason upon which the impugned order is based is that while the notices were issued, the same could not be served on any of the petitioners rather it was served on the care taker/agent of Ms. Asha Nanda and all the petitioners were living in Delhi, hence since Ms. Asha Nanda was in possession of all the land, hence they were clubbed in the hands of Ms. Asha Nanda.

20. It is urged that the Ceiling Authorities were not justified in drawing presumption merely on the basis of notice having been accepted by one care taker and that the respective petitioners of both the writ petitions were not found living at the village. It is thus urged that where the land purchased by Som Nath Khanna, Madan Lal Smt. Sangita Khanna and Sai Kiran was different points of time and apparently they were neither the said petitioners at the time of purchase were minors to enable the land treating them to be within the family to be clubbed nor there was any relevant evidence on record to substantiate that the land recorded in the name of the petitioners was ostensibly owned while Ms. Asha Nanda was the actual owner, hence the two orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities are per se without jurisdiction arbitrary and deserves to be set aside after allowing the writ petitions.

21. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Singh learned Standing Counsel has vehemently defended the orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities and submitted that apparently the petitioners of the two writ petitions were of the same family. Notice was accepted on behalf of the petitioners by care taker of Ms. Asha Nanda who was found to be in possession of all the land and this being a finding of fact which has been concurrently affirmed by the two Ceiling Authorities may not be disturbed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

22. It is further pointed out that in so far as Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda are concerned, it was their duty to have established that on the date of purchase of the said land on 09.04.1990 they were living separately and they had purchased the same by their own separate means of income having not established this fact and while the admitted position was that the petitioners were not residing but were rather in Delhi and the notices were received on the care taker of Ms. Asha Nanda, hence the finding recorded by the two Ceiling Authorities are a plausible new and it does not suffer from any error.

23. It is also urged that as far as the case of the petitioners of Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 is concerned, again it was for the petitioners to have established the land was separate and they were cultivating the land separately which has not been established in the same vein. It is also urged that all the petitioners were found not residing in the village area and were said to be residing in Delhi, hence the finding recorded by the Ceiling Authorities in the given facts and circumstances cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed.

24. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

25. The Court proposes to take the issue for consideration as involved in Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) of 2005 first.

26. As far as the said writ petition is concerned, the undisputed facts that emerge from the record are that on 09.04.1990 the father's of the petitioners, namely Goverdhan Lal Nanda had purchased Plot No.95 vide sale deed dated 09.04.1990. Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda also purchased some part of Plot No.94. It is also undisputed that on the date of purchase i.e. on 09.04.1990 both the petitioners were major in age. In the given backdrop, it will be relevant to notice the definition of the word family as defined under section 3(7) of the Act 1960 which reads as under:- "3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) x x x

(2) x x x (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x (6) x x x (7) "Family" in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters);

x x x

5. Imposition of Ceiling:-(1) x x x (2) x x x (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be - (a) x x x (b) In the case of a tenure-holder having family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who holds less than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult son aggregates to two hectares, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land; Explanation.-The expression 'adult son' in clauses (a) and (b) includes an adult son who is dead and has left surviving behind him minor sons or minor daughters (other than married daughters) who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold land less than two hectares of irrigated land;

27. Apparently, the word family as defined does not include the major children. On the face of it without any evidence to the contrary the land purchased by Punit Nanda and Vipul Nanda could not be clubbed with that of Goverdhan Lal Nanda as they were major in age. It is also undisputed that though Vipul Nanda had entered into the witness box and had deposed which clearly indicated that at the date of purchase that is on 09.04.1990 both he and his brother were major. This fact could not be controverted by the State and its witness Hem Raj and Raj Kishore Singh.

28. Even the Khatauni which was placed on record, which is record of rights indicated the name of Punit Nanda and Vipul Nanda as the recorded tenure holder. There was no material brought on record by the State Authorities to indicate that though the land may have been recorded in the names of Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda but they were not in possession or it was with the some other person. If that was proved then perhaps their could have been some scope for returning a finding that Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda were ostensible owner whereas the property was of the actually owner (in this case, namely, Smt. Asha Nanda to whom the notice under section 10(2) was issued).

29. It is also to be noticed that even if at all the sale deed was executed on 09.04.1990 both in the names of Goverdhan Lal Nanda and the other sale deed the name of Vipul Nand and Punit Nanda and after the death of Goverdhan Lal Nanda assuming all the two plots were belonging to Goverdhan Lal Nanda even then upon his death the two plots would be divided and succeeded by his heirs Ms. Asha Nanda and the present petitioners being the sons each having 1/3rd share and in that context if 1/3rd share of each of the tenure holder, is noticed even then it would be less then the ceiling limit of 7.30 hectares. Hence to that extent the finding recorded by both the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority is not sustainable.

30. There is another way to look at it as under what circumstances, the said land could be treated to be in the hands of Ms. Asha Nanda alone is also not considered and as noticed above even if the contention of the State Authorities is taken at its face value even then, it would reveal that if both the areas of Plot Nos.94 and 95 standing in the name of Goverdhan Lal Nanda, Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda is clubbed treating it to be the property of Goverdhan Lal Nanda even then it would be less than the ceiling limit. Moreover after the death of Goverdhan Lal Nanda the said area would devolve on his three heirs even in that case it would be less than the ceiling limit. Accordingly, the said finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority is patently perverse and cannot be sustained.

31.The submission of the learned Standing Counsel does not impress the Court and this Court finds that the impugned orders in so far as they relate to Vipul Nanda and Punit Nanda is concerned, relating to Writ-C No.3000026 (Ceiling) 2005 is concerned are arbitrary and suffer from the vice of non consideration of material on record deserves to be set aside.

32. Now relating to the submissions, relating to Writ-C No.3000025 (Ceiling) of 2005 is concerned, in light of the above noted facts and from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that both the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority has proceeded on the premise that since notice was issued and received by and on behalf of Ms. Asha Nanda, hence it was found that the land relating to all the original petitioners namely, Som Nath Khanna, Madan Lal, Ms. Sangita Khanna and Sai Kiran were ostensible owner whereas possession was of Ms. Asha Nanda, Hence the same was clubbed together.

33. It would be relevant to notice that the nature of U.P Imposition of Ceiling Act, 1980 is aproprietary legislation by which land beyond the prescribed limit can be ex-proprieted by the State under the Act of 1960. In the aforesaid circumstances where the nature of the Act 1960 is such then the same has to be strictly construed. In case if the land of any record tenure holder is to be taken by the State in exercise of powers under the Act 1960, then it would be State who has to establish that the condition prescribed in the Act are clearly met, failing which it cannot be assumed that the entries or the facts as appearing on record are incorrect.

34. In this context if the material on record is seen, it would reveal that the original tenure holders have filed their objections clearly stating when they had purchased the property. In this regard, it would reveal that in so far as Som Nath Khanna is concerned, he had purchased the property in the year 1968 Madan Lal had purchased the property on 21/23-04-1976. Ms. Sangita Khanna purchased the property in the year 1968. If the properties were purchased in the year 1968 and 1976 and they have remained in the names of original tenure holder throughout then without any cogent evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that the land of such tenure holders could be clubbed with the land of Ms. Asha Nanda by issuing her notice under section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 in the year 2002.

35. It would be relevant to notice that the revenue records are prepared by the State Authorities, the Lekhpal makes an inspection and survey of the properties and upon noticing any change in the possession or ownership then the same is duly recorded and reflected in the Khasra (document indicating possession). The State could not produce any material by which it could be indicated that in the Khatauni (record of rights). the name of tenure holders is recorded but in the coloum of possession name of some other person has been shown.

36. A plea of ostensible ownership can very easily be raised but the same has to be proved in accordance with law and especially were it is taken for the purpose of confiscating the land in terms of the Act of 1960 then burden is heavy on the State Authorities to prove the same which they have failed rather it may be said that there was no evidence to suggest that Ms. Asha Nanda was the actual owner.

37. The only evidence which appears to be on record and relied upon by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority is the alleged statement of Chotey Lal who was the care taker and Manager and who had accepted notice issued to Ms. Asha Nand which also included the reference to the land belonging to the original petitioners.

38. This is an absolutely misconceived reasoning by which land of duly recorded owners who have been there on record for decades and merely in absence of any material the said land be treated to be that of some other favour and confiscate the land.

39. This Court is satisfied that the reasoning recorded and reflected from the orders is patently erroneous. The State even while filing the counter-affidavit has merely referred to the paragraph of the impugned judgment but has not brought any material or evidence on record which can substantiate that the petitioners were the ostensible owner and Ms. Asha Nanda was the main person and actual owner in possession of the property and that it belonged to her.

40. There is another way to consider the sole aspect especially when the original tenure holders were not minors and there is no direct relationship with Ms. Asha Nanda, hence it cannot be treated that they were part of the same family or that the property was held by Ms. Asha Nanda, Benami. If at all such plea was to be taken for the benefit of the State, then the same should have been established by the evidence and as already noticed above that there is no evidence to the aforesaid effect.

41. It is also relevant to notice the merely because the petitioners were residing in Delhi cannot give rise to any assumption or presumption that since the notice under section 10(2) was received by Ms. Asha Nanda through her care taker and merely on his statement that the possession was that of Ms. Asha Nanda, it cannot be concluded that she was the owner and in possession since as noticed above, there was nothing on record to substantiate the said fact. Merely a statement of a care taker without any corroborating material cannot be taken to be against the tenure holders to vest the property in the State. From the side of the State, there was no cogent evidence by which it could justify appropriating the land under the Act of 1960.

42. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, this Court finds that the findings returned by the Ceiling Authorities are not in consonance with law and cannot be sustained and being perverse are, accordingly, set aside.

43. As a consequence, the judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 13.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

October 10, 2025

ank