KAPIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions is, that Laxmi Narayan was the original tenure holder and died in the year 1969 and left behind his three minor sons and his widow as his heirs who inherited agricultural land measuring 234 bighas, 10 biswas, 17 biswansis and 10 kachwansis, situate in Village Chandpur and in Village Nasirpur Khurd. In the year 1975, a notice under Section 10(2) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued in the name of the three minor sons of the deceased. The widow was not issued any notice. In the notice, the Petitioners were directed to show cause as to why 42 bighas, 11 biswas, 16 biswansis and 10 kachwansis should not be declared as surplus land under the Act. Objections were filed alleging that the widow of deceased had a 1/4th share and that the land in village Nasirpur Khurd, measuring 135 bighas is a grove which was planted prior to 1971 and should be treated as a grove land. In the alternative, it was also alleged that the land in Nasirpur Khurd should be treated as un -irrigated land and that the tube -well installed at one of the plots was after 15th August, 1972. The Petitioners contended that the transfer of the land by various registered sale deeds in the year 1972 were bonafide transactions made in good faith and that the sale deed was executed after seeking permission from the District Judge for the upkeep of the Petitioners and, therefore, such sale deeds should be excluded from the surplus land.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority, by its order dated 20 May, 1979 rejected the objections of the Petitioners and confirmed the notice holding that 42 bighas, 11 biswas, 16 biswansis and 10 kachwansis were surplus land in the hands of the Petitioners.

(3.) THE Petitioners thereafter, filed the writ petition No. 2361 of77beforetheAllahabad High Court which was allowed by a judgment dated 19 December, 1976 and the order of the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority was set aside and the case was remitted back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the matter afresh. The High Court held that the transfer of the land by means of registered sale deeds were valid and were made in good faith after seeking permission from the District Judge and such sale deeds can not be disregarded under Section 5(6)(b) of the Act and, consequently, directed the Prescribed Authority to reconsider the question of validity of the sale deeds for the purposes of Section 5(6) of the Act.