STATE OF U P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. The opposite party No. 3 in the instant petition is Babu Lal and a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to him along with a copy of the statement, which was prepared in his case under Section 10(1). Objections were filed and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-7-1975, a true copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the said tenure-holder, Babu Lal and the same was allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 30-9-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition. Now the State has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel. In opposition, Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the said tenure-holder Babu Lal, had made his submissions.

(3.) There is only one point involved in this petition. Three agreements of sale were made before 24-1-1971 between the said tenure-holder and certain persons. To be more precise, the agreement of sale dated 5-3-1970 was entered into between the said tenure-holder and one Babu Lal son of Ram Das, the second agreement of sale dated 8-3-1970 was made between the said tenure-holder and one Brij Kishore, and the third-agreement to sell dated 30-3-1970 was made between the said tenure holder and two persons by names Ram Het and Kali Charan. In pursuance of the said agreements, the transferees concerned paid a part of the sale consideration payable by them in respect of each agreement of sale and the said tenure-holder parted with the possession of the land which was agreed to be sold by him to the transferee concerned. The genuineness of the said agreements has been accepted by the appellate court and it was held that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, the land which were agreed to be sold by the aforesaid three agreements of sale, were excluded from the holding of the said tenure-holder. The total area of such land comes to 73 Bighas 6 biswas or 29 Bighas, 6 biswas, 8 biswansi of irrigated land. The State could not be allowed to question the findings of fact recorded by the appellate court regarding the genuineness of the said agreements of sale and that in pursuance thereof, possession of land agreed to be sold passed to the transferees concerned. However, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the legal inferences drawn by the appellate court below were not sustainable in law and therefore, the appellate courts' aforesaid judgment should be quashed. The following aspects of the matter were emphasised: