SHEO NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

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 The notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner No. 1 Sheonath Singh. It is said that subsequently a notice was issued to his wife Smt Kalawti and to Kedar Nath and Ram Nath the two sons of Smt. Kilawati Kedarnath is dead and he is bing re presented by the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4. The Prescribed Authority disposed of the objections by his order dated 29-10- 1979 and a true copy of the sama is Annexure 1 to the petition Thereafter, two appeals were filed and both of them were decided by the appellate Court by a common judgment dated 14-8-1980. The appeals were pirtly allowed. Now the petitioners have come,up in the instant writ petition and in support of the sam- I have heard Sri Rishi Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. Two contentious were raised before me. Firstly, it was contended that some land was formerly ancestral Sir and Khudkasht in the hands of the peti tioner No 1 Therefore, the two sons of the petitioner No I were equal co-tenure-holders along with their father in such land which became Bhumidhari after the abolition of Zamindari The appellate Court rejected the claim on the ground that as no revenue suit had been brought for partition of the respective shares in the said land, therefore, the petitioner No. I alone should in law be held to be the sola tenure-holder of such land. The further reason was given that as the father alone stood recorded on 8-6-1973 in respect of such land, then fore, he alone could be treated as the sole tenure-holder I hold that this view is entirely wrong. In several decisions of this Court, it has been laid down that if some land was ancestral Sir and Khudkasht in the hands of a tenure-holder before the date of vesting and if his sons were in existence on the date of vesting, then the sons will be deemed to be co-tenure-holders in such land along with their father after such land became Bhumidhari after the abolition of Zimindari, and furth r the fact that only the name of the father stood recorded over such land did not mean that the sons did not have their vested shares in such land. It was not at all necessary that a pirtition suit should have bfen filed or that the sons should have got their names recorded over their respective shares in such land bafort 8-6-1973. Accordingly, I accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel next contended that a sale deed was wrongly ignored by the authorities below In my view, this contention bcks merits. The sile deed was ex cutcd. on 29th October, 1971 and it was executed in favour of her sons. The authorities below have given good reasons why the same could not be accepted and therefore, the benefit of clause (b) of the proviso of sec tion 3 (6) of the Act was not extended in respect of such deed of transfer. No interference is called for in the said finding. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the judgment of the appellite Court is hereby quashed to the extent that under point No 2 in the said iu fg-ment the controversy about the shares of the sons along with their father in the land which was claimed to be ancestril Sir and Khudkasht before the dite of vesting was discussed and decided. The appellate Court shall reconsider the said controversy and decide whether any, and if so, to what extent, the land included in the holding of the petitioner No 1 as the tenure-holder was, before the date of vesting. Sir and Khudkasht and if so, whether it was ancestral in his hands. It will further be decided whether the two sons of the said tenure-holder, namely, Ram Nath and Kedarnath were in existt nee on 1st July, 1952 If it be found that some land was formerly ancestral Sir and Khudkisht in the hands of the petitioner No. I and that his two sons, or any one of them were or was in existence on 1st July, 1952, then each of the sons will have equal share in. such land along with his father, and the same shall be excluded from the holding of the petitioner No. 1. The ceiling area and the surplus land shall be redetermined thereafter. It is made clear that no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised before the appellate Court hereafter. In the cir cumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. .