SAHAB LAL SINGH Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief, are these.

(2.) THE petitioner's father Ram Roop Singh was the tenure-holder and the notice under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act was issued to him but was served on the petitioner as during this period the tenure-holder died. Usual proceedings took place and they have become final. In this petition the petitioner raises only one controversy and that is in respect of choice under Sec. 12-A of the Act. His grievance is that two sale deeds executed after 24-1-71 and before 8-6-73 were ignored under Sec. 5 (6) but the lands covered by the said sale deeds were refused to be included in the surplus land of the tenure-holder. THE Prescribed Authority purported to act under clause (d) of Sec. 12-A and the learned counsel states that the said authority was wrong in thinking that no discretion was left to the Prescribed Authority in the said matter. For this purpose he placed reliance on Nakchhed Singh v. State of U. P., I978 AWC 511. I have looked into the said decision but in my view it does not apply to the facts of the instant case. THE correct legislative intention is that the transfer deed ignored under Sec. 5(6) of the Act for the purposes of ceiling law should still subsist so far as the parties concerned, namely transferor and transferees are concerned as far as possible. However, if it be not possible, then the lands covered by such deeds or part thereof can be declared as surplus. In the instant case no objection can be taken to the Prescribed Authority's decision if he thought that it was possible to carry out the legislative intention and not to include the lands of the said sale deeds in the surplus area of the tenure-holder.