MAHFUZZUR RAHMAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FAIZABAD DIVISION, FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr A.R. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mohd.Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr Rohit Verma, learned Standing Counsel. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.1.1986 (Annexure no.1), passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kaiserganj district Bahraich as also the order dated 22.3.1990, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in appeal, upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority .

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Prescribed Authority issued a notice on 12.6.1974 under Section 10 (2) of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (in short Ceiling Act) to Sri Fazal Ali S/o Sri Hasmat Ali, the original tenure holder, who filed objection. The Prescribed Authority after considering the objection declared 9.763 acre land as surplus on 3.2.1975. Petitioners are purchasers of the land in dispute through the registered sale-deed dated 8.9.1967. It is stated that in a suit filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ( in short U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) the petitioner no. 3 was declared as Sirdar. The petitioners also claim that they had not been served with any notice under Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (in short Rule). However, after coming to know about the order of declaration, they filed objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act claiming ownership over the plots measuring 14.31 acre. They claimed that they had acquired it by the registered sale-deed executed on 8.9.1967 by the original tenure- holder. They also averred that the possession had also been delivered to them and since then they have been in continuous possession over the land in dispute. They further stated that their adverse possession has also been confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer in exercise of power provided under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act. Therefore, the said land could not be included with the land of original tenure holder for the purpose of determination of ceiling area.

(3.) THE negative conditions set out in clause (b) of the proviso are that it must not be benami transaction; that it must not be for immediate or deferred benefit of transferring tenure holder or other members of his family . On the point of benami transaction he cited the case of Jaydayal Poddar vs. Mst Bibi Hazara and others reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 171. Relevant paragraph 6 is reproduced hereunder;