HAR NARAIN TIWARI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority exercising the powers under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In earlier Writ Petition No. 7740 of 1983, the petitioners have also challenged the orders of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority. The writ petition was allowed in part and the order of the prescribed authority dated 31.12.1980 and the order of the appellate authority dated 4.3.1983 were set aside, in so far as they pertained to the bona fide of sale deeds dated 25th August. 1971 and 16th of November, 1971 executed by Chob Singh deceased. The matter was remanded by this Court to the appellate authority with the direction to decide it afresh on merits according to law the question of validity and effect of the two sale deeds dated 25th August. 1971 and 16th November, 1971. In view of the provisions of Section 5 (6) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act pursuant to the remand order, the appellate authority has decided the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioners. In paragraphs 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition which deals with the bona fide of the executant of the sale deeds dated 25th August, 1971 and 16th November. 1971 and after discussing the evidence on record In the case of appellants, the appellate authority has decided the appeal in the following terms : "Both the sale deeds in favour of Chandan and Ramjit and others were made after 24th January. 1971 and for their validity it has to be proved that these deeds were executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. I have already mentioned above that no cash consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deeds and the consideration shown there is highly inadequate and even its payment has not been proved. It further appears that the vendees were not put in immediate possession of the land sold. The vendees further appear to be the men of tenure-holder. It is apparent from the record that they were family members of the appellants to file objections against these proceedings. The sale deeds executed in their favour thus neither appear to be in good faith nor for consideration what to say of adequate consideration and in this way they were rightly ignored by the prescribed authority. That the objections filed by the petitioners have been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that when this Court remanded the matter after setting aside the orders of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority In earlier Writ Petition No. 7740 of 1983, the appellate authority has committed an error when it has decided only with regard to the bona fide of sale deeds and the entire case set up by the petitioners has not been considered and thus the order of the appellate authority suffers from manifest error of law. From the facts stated above, this Court directed the appellate authority to consider the nature of the sale deeds referred to above, in view of Section 5 (6) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, which has been dealt with in detail and discussed by the appellate authority. It has neither been argued nor submitted that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority, suffers from any error of law. That being the finding of fact on the basis whereof the appellate authority has arrived at the conclusion that both the sale deeds dated 25th of August. 1971 and 16th of November, 1971 were neither bona fide nor for adequate consideration. Thus, the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority were fully justified in ignoring both the sale deeds for determination of surplus land with regard to the tenure holder. That being the findings of fact, cannot be interfered by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor any infirmity has been pointed out as already stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners which may warrant interference by this Court with the findings of fact In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, thus, devoid of any merits and Is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. THE interim order, if any, stands vacated.