RAM SURAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. Vinod Rai for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner claims himself to be a bonafide purchaser of the holding in dispute from one Asha Kumari. Asha Kumari in turn claimed herself to be the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute after having obtained Bhumidhari rights in terms of Section 134 to 136 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that Asha Kumari was earlier declared as Sirdar in terms of the order passed by the consolidation officer in objections filed under Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963 vide order dated3rd November, 1971. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. The name of Asha Kumari came to be recorded whereafter the petitioners purchased it from her through a registered sale deed dated 31st December, 1975.

(3.) Proceedings were undertaken against Smt. Jogeshwari Devi, the respondent No.5 under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 for declaring the disputed land in excess of the ceiling limit as surplus. The disputed holding also became part of the said adjudication and was declared as surplus in the hands of Jogeshwari Devi on 27th July, 1976. The petitioner had absolutely no knowledge about the said proceedings, and according to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners their names were mutated and continued to be recorded as tenure holders. The petitioners have also brought on record the Khatauni (record of rights) to contend their names were continuing as such as late as the year 1991 ( 1396 Fasli). A copy of the said Khatauni is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.