DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.K.S. Chaudhari, learned senior counsel appearing, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Nagcshwar Prasad Pandey, learned standing counsel.

(2.) THE father of the petitioners Yadunath Singh died on 22.9.1971. Separate notices under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were issued to the petitioners. Objections were filed on behalf of the petitioners. The prescribed authority by order dated 31.10.1974 declared an area of 27.89 acres and 24.81 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The prescribed authority has recorded a finding that the land sold through sale deeds after 24th January. 1971, should not be excluded from holdings of the petitioners. After coming into force of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976. fresh notices were issued to the petitioners and prescribed authority by order dated 29.5.1976 held 55.20 acres and 43.76 acres respectively in terms of irrigated land as surplus with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners filed appeals before the District Judge which were partly allowed by order dated 18.8.1977, holding that the area covered by the sale deeds executed by the father of the petitioners be excluded while computing the total tenure holdings of the petitioners but the sale deeds executed by the petitioners after 24.1.1971, should be treated as part and parcel of the holdings of the petitioners.

(3.) THE prescribed authority by his order dated 11.2.1985, submitted its findings with regard to both the issues against the petitioners and found that the sale deeds executed were not in good faith, for adequate consideration and were benami transactions. The petitioners filed objection on 20.5.1985, against the findings of the prescribed authority. The learned Additional District Judge by impugned order dated 25.9.1985 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner No. 2 and held that 45.87 acres of irrigated land is found surplus with him. The appeal of petitioner No. 1 was dismissed.