STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since all the respondents are either sons or daughters-in-law of the tenure-holder by name Kishun Singh.

(2.) Kishun Singh, admittedly, held 110 acres of agricultural lands. The U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 was amended. Act of 1972 came into force w. e. f. January 24, 1971. The admitted position is that prior to the Amendment Act into force on September 10, 1970, Kishun Singh had alienated by registered sale deeds his holdings in favour of his sons and daughters-in-law. When the computation was sought to be made of the surplus land under Section 5 of the Act, the respondents claimed lands as a of their own. Accordingly, they sought to be holders of the lands purchased by them under the sale deeds. the Tribunals disallowed it but in the Writ Petition Nos. 384/78 and batch by impugned order dated October 29, 1979, the High Court allowed the matters and set aside the orders of the authorities. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

(3.) Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raised two-fold contention. It is contended that by operation of sub-section (6) of Section 5, any alienations made on or after January 1971 are declared to be null and void unless they are bona fide transactions for valuable consideration and are not intended to be a sham transaction or benami alienation. The alienation came to be made by Kishun Singh in favour of his sons and daughters-in-law on September 10, 1970, i. e., prior to amendment Act came into force; mutation also was effected thereafter. As on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, the respondents were registered holders of agricultural holdings. Kishun Singh was neither holding the land nor was he a tenure-holder of the alienations. The alienations being genuine transactions effected prior to the coming into force of the Act, the same have to be taken into consideration and the lands covered by the sale deeds are required to be excluded from the holding of Kishnu Singh. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunals below was not correct in law. It is also contended that the burden of proof on the respondents would arise only in case the alienations were made on or after January 24, 1971; rather the burden is on the State of prove that they are not genuine transactions and are intended to defeat the provisions of the Act, No proof in that behalf was adduced by the State. On the other hand, the respondents have produced oral and documentary evidence through their examination and by way of the sale deeds. Lekh Pal, examined on behalf of the appellant, has not given any categorical statement that the respondents were not in possession of the lands purchased by them in their own right as owners. The District Judge has not given any categorical finding in that behalf. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct in law.