RANI PADMA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the controversy involved in all the three writ petitioners is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petitions, according to the petitioners, are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act) was given by the Prescribed Authority to the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Rani Padma Devi (since deceased) proposing to declare 523.04 acres of land as surplus out of the entire holding of the said petitioner assumed to be 619.83 acres. The petitioner No. 1 filed objection on 27.12.1975 alleging therein that the notice given to her is against law and the same is ultra vires. It was also alleged that the present notice is barred by the principle of res judicata because earlier also proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Act, which attained finality, therefore, for the same land notice ought not to have been issued again under the U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973. It was also alleged that there is no surplus land in possession of the petitioner No. 1 and that land to the tune of 200 -54 hectares has wrongly been shown as irrigated, while the same is un -irrigated. No regular source of irrigation was available. It was also contended that the land in possession of Adhivasi has wrongly been clubbed with the land of the petitioner no. 1. It was also alleged that the tenure holder sold certain land on different dates through registered sale deeds on fair market rate. The land was sold on account of repayment of loan and purchase of agriculture implement. The tenure holder also gave 15 -50 acres of land to her son Sri Karan Chandra Raj Singh. According to the petitioners, in respect of the land in question, notice under Section 10(2) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the said Act was also issued to large number of other persons and they also filed objections on various grounds in support of their case. The objectors based their claims on lease deed executed by the petitioner no. 1, the sale deed executed by the petitioner no. 1, the gift deed executed by the petitioner no.1 and claim based on Adhivasi right/adverse possession. Petitioner no. 1 executed lease deed in respect of 12.50 acres each in favour of Chandra Bhan Singh and Subedar Virendra Singh on 28.7.1971 and 30.7.1971 respectively besides Sri Mukhtar Ahmad in respect of 12.01 acres of land on 30.7.1971. Petitioner no. 1 also executed lease deed in favour of Sri Sarosh Gandhi, son of Sri P. Gandhi on 28.7.1971 in respect of 7.5 acres of land, Sri Ram Singh on 30.7.1971 in respect of 11.39 acres, Rajendra Singh on 30.7.1971 in respect of 12.44 acres of land, Sheru Ram, Kesho Ram and Om Prakash on 15.7.1971 in respect of 5 acres of land. It is alleged that these persons were in actual physical possession of the land even before execution of lease deed.

(3.) IN Writ Petition 4774 of 2001 (M/S) the controversy is with regard to the validity of sale deeds executed by petitioner no. 1. In paragraph no. 4A of the petition, the names of the persons in whose favour sale deeds were executed on 25.1.1972 as well as on some other dates and the area of the land have been mentioned. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 intended to take action against the persons who had been in possession of the specific portion of land, but they expressed their willingness to purchase the said land in their possession. Hence sale deeds were executed by the petitioner no. 1 through her registered power of attorney holder Sri Karan Chand Raj Singh in good faith and for adequate sale consideration and the purchasers are alleged to be continuing in actual physical possession and on the basis of the sale deeds their names have also been mutated in the revenue records.