GYANENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the orders dated 23.7.1987 and 28.8.1976 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively in proceedings arising out of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a notice under section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to one Netrapal Singh, father of petitioner no. 3. Netra Pal Singh was the original tenure holder. He filed his objections to the said notice stating therein that he had executed a registered gift deed in favour of his son, petitioner no. 3, on 23.9.1970 for an area of 19.7.8 acres. He also stated that he had executed two sale deeds on 15.2.1972 and 3.3.1972 in favour of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The said sale deeds were made after 24.1.1971 but were executed before coming into force of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1975 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975). Therefore, according to Netra Pal Singh, the tenure holder, the land covered under the two sale deeds as well as the gift deed was liable to be excluded from the land falling within the ceiling area. The matter was heard and ultimately by the order dated 28.8.1976, considering the objections of the tenure holder, the claim was allowed in part and land measuring 19.7.8 acres was held to be irrigated land and declared as surplus from plots no. 20, 719 and 725.

(3.) AGGRIEVED the petitioners filed a Ceiling Appeal which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Aligarh by judgement dated 11.12.1976. The petitioners thereupon filed a civil misc. writ petition no. 997 of 1977 which was allowed in part and on 1.5.1979 the judgment of the appellate authority was quashed on the question of validity of the gift deed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to determine the surplus land area of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in the judgement of the High Court. On remand the matter was reconsidered by the appellate authority who by the impugned judgement dated 23.7.1987 has held that the gift deed cannot be said to be a valid document and was a sham transaction made only for the purposes of avoiding the land from being declared surplus in the proceeding under the Act of 1960. Hence the present writ petition.