IRSHAD AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated.16-2-89 passed in proceedings under section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, (for short the Act), and the order dated 30-9-83 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner has made an application under section 11 (2) of the Act to set aside 'the earlier exparte order alleging that he has purchased the land from one Vijai Rikh, the tenure holder, by a sale deed dated 30-5-72, hence he was required to be served with notice and the land covered by the sale deed need not be declared as surplus, as he was protected by the provisions of sub section (6) of section 5 of the Act THE Prescribed Authority in earlier .proceedings rejected the contention of Vijai Rikh, the original tenure holder, and against that order the appeal of tenure holder was dismissed on 30-9-77. THEreafter the present petitioner and some other persons filed an objection under section 11 (2) of the Act alleging that they had no knowledge of the earlier proceeding and no notice was served upon them, ana they were purchasers from tenure holder by a sale deed dated 30-5-72. THE Prescribed Authority rejected the contention of petitioner holding that the notice was served upon him and the sale deed was relied upon by another tenure holder. THE tenure bolder filed an appeal and after dismissal of the same he also preferred v*rit Petition No. 268 of 1978. decided on 30-10-78 (Annexure-2), and the sale deed was held not to be bona fide transaction Consequently, this Court has already decided that the purchaser would not be entitled to the benefit of sub-section (6) of section 5 of the Act THE appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 16-2-89. Against these orders the present petition has been filed

(3.) THERE Is another aspect also that the same sale deed was relied upon by the tenure holder while he had filed the writ petition and be has also led evidence, but the sale deed was not held to be bona fide. Under these circumstances, the vendee cannot set up the same sale deed again and file the objection. Any way, after opportunity of hearing his objection was rejected and his appeal also failed I am of the opinion that the orders are correct and under the impugned judgment a finding has been recorded that the sale deed set up by the petitioner was not bona fide transaction and was not in good faith and nor the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 5 (6) of the Act.