Uttarakhand High Court
Sukhbir Singh vs Additional Commissioner Meerut on 27 September, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 23691 of 1988
Sukhbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Meerut
and Others ...Respondent
Present:
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has challenged judgment and order
dated 19.04.1988 passed by Prescribed Authority under
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(for short 'the Act'). He has also challenged the
judgment dated 14.10.1988 passed by Commissioner
(Administration), Meerut Division in an appeal filed
under Section 13 of the Act.
2. From the documents brought on record, it
appears that a notice was issued to petitioners under
Section 10(2) of the aforesaid Act, wherein his total
irrigated land holding was shown as 62 bigha, 16 biswa
and 3 biswansi. Proceedings were initiated and the
Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 16.04.1976,
declared 7 bigha, 14 biswa and 13 biswansi land as
surplus. However, in appeal, learned IV Additional
District Judge, Saharanpur vide judgment dated
22.09.1977, held area of petitioner's holding as 40
bigha, 6 biswa and 16 biswansis, out of which, 4 bigha
and 15 biswa land comprised in Plot No. 144/1, Village
Maahpur, was declared surplus. The said judgment
dated 22.09.1977, passed by IV Additional District
Judge in appeal, attained finality, qua petitioner. Two
persons, namely, Ibrahim and Bashir, who claimed to
have purchased 9 bigha, 10 biswa and 12 biswansi land
from Plot No. 144/1 from son of the petitioner,
approached Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 1908 of 1982 challenging the order passed
by Prescribed Authority, affirmed by Appellate
Authority, whereby, their objection filed under Section
10(2) of the Act was rejected.
3. The writ petition filed by Ibrahim and Bashir was
allowed by learned Single Judge of Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court and the matter was relegated back to the
Prescribed Authority to decide the case afresh, as per
law. Operative portion of the said judgment is extracted
below:-
"Yet another aspect of the matter is that under Section 12-A(d)
of the Act it has been proved that where any person holds land
in excess of the ceiling area including land which is the subject
of any transfer of partition referred to in sub-section (6) of sub-
section (7) of Section 5, the surplus land determined shall, as
far as possible, be land other than the land (which is the subject
of such transfer or partition. In the instant case the term 'as far
as possible' has to be interpreted so as to safeguard the interest
of the vendees. I am of the opinion that the term as far as
possible means that the ceiling authorities must record a finding
that it was not possible to obtain other land of the tenure holder
to be declared surplus other than the land which was sold or
was the subject matter of partition. In this case it has not been
held by the learned District Judge or by the learned Prescribed
Authority as to why the land of the petitioners who were
vendees was not saved from being declared as surplus. In other
words, the ceiling authorities ought to have exempted the
present land in dispute in respect of which the original tenure
holder Sukhbir Singh indicated his choice for being declared as
surplus. The orders of the Ceiling Authorities cannot be
maintained as they have failed to consider the provisions of
Section 12-A(d) of the Act.
I am further of the opinion that simply because the sale deeds in
favour of the petitioners were obtained after 24th January,
1971, the same could not be ignored on this very ground.
Unless the sale deeds were held to be transfers not in good faith
or for adequate consideration under the irrevocable instrument
the sale deeds cannot be ignored. In other words even if the
sale deeds were obtained subsequent to the 24th January, 1971
nevertheless the Prescribed Authority may consider whether it
was a transaction in good faith or it was for inadequate
consideration or under the irrevocable instruments it is benami
transaction of the tenure holder or other members of the family.
In certain circumstances of the case if these conditions laid
down under section 5(b) proviso (b) are satisfied even the sale
deeds subsequent to that date can be held to be legal and
considered for the purposes of determination of ceiling land to
be declared as surplus simply because the sale deeds were
obtained, a subsequent date they cannot be prima facie held to
be illegal or ignored (See Brigendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others (AIR 1981 SC 636 (para 17 18, 19 and 21)-.
In view of the discussions made hereinbefore the order dated
16th December, 1981 passed by the District Judge and the
order dated 18th April, 1980 passed by the Prescribed Authority
cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed.
In the result, the petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The
impugned orders dated 16th December, 1981 and 18th April,
1980 passed by the District Judge and the Prescribed Authority
respectively to the extent it is in respect of plot No.144/1 are
quashed. The Prescribed Authority is to decide the case afresh in
accordance with law and in the light of the observations made
above. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
4. Upon remand, Prescribed Authority decided the
matter afresh vide judgment dated 19.04.1988 and
declared the sale deed executed in favour of Ibrahim
and Bashir by petitioner's son, to be valid and the
objection raised by petitioner that the sale effected
after 24.01.1971 is invalid, was rejected. By the said
order, petitioner's 4 bigha, 15 biswa land comprised in
Plot No. 144/2, village Maahpur, pargana Manglore was
declared to be surplus and the choice given by
petitioner under Section 12-A of the Act was rejected.
Petitioner challenged the said order passed by
Prescribed Authority in Appeal, which was dismissed by
Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division vide
judgment dated 14.10.1988. These two judgments
have now been challenged by the petitioner in this writ
petition.
5. Transfer of land made in good faith, after
24.01.1971, is valid as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Brijendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, (1981) 1 SCC 597. The Prescribed Authority
and learned Commissioner, Meerut Division have thus
rightly held that transfer of land made in favour of
Ibrahim and Bashir, even though after 24.01.1971, is
valid. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to
disturb the concurrent findings recorded by Prescribed
Authority and Appellate Authority after remand of the
matter by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted
that by the impugned judgments, the sale made by
petitioner's son in favour of Ibrahim and Bashir has
been held to be valid, consequently, petitioner's land
holding would be reduced to the extent of the area,
which was sold out by his son to the aforesaid two
persons, therefore, the land found to be surplus at the
hands of the petitioner needs to be re-determined.
Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection
if the matter is remanded for redetermination of
surplus land.
7. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the
Prescribed Authority, who shall re-determine the land
found surplus at the hands of the petitioner, as per law
within six months hence. Till such redetermination,
petitioner shall not create any third party interest over
his land holding.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Ujjwal 27.09.2024
