RAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgement and orders dated 31.1.1996 and 26.9.1996 passed b y respondent nos. 3 & 2 respectively.

(2.) The facts shorn of details are that the prescribed authority gave a notice to the petitioner under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners in reply to the notice submitted that the land occupied by the petitioners was within the ceiling limit. The prescribed authority, declared 13.4402 hectares of land as surplus land. Aggrieved against the order of the prescribed authority, an appeal was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 26.9.1996 by Addl. Collector, Allahabad Region, Allahabad. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgement of the appellate authority, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Original tenure holder during his life time had executed three sale deeds and three gift deeds in favour of his daughter-in-laws and daughters and two others namely Kalika Prasad and Kallu. These transfers have been affected prior to 24.1.1971. By virtue of amendment effected in Section 5(6) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 by UP Act No. 18 of 1973 any transfer of land effected prior to 24.1.1971 shall not be enquired into for the purpose of finding out as to whether such deed has been executed in good faith or not. While reading Section 5(1) Explanation II which contemplates that if on or before 24.1.1971, any person who was holding the land as owner and is in actual physical possession of the land and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or license or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person. The explanation contemplates that the genuineness and otherwise of any such transfer deeds can always be examined if it is found on fact that the original owner continues to cultivate the land for and on behalf of said person. If the case is otherwise then the authenticity of such transfer deeds can not be questioned.