JOG RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -A notice under Section 9 (2) was issued to a tenure holder, namely Pala Singh by the prescribed authority, under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Pala Singh filed his objections and, the prescribed authority, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 12.11.1974 under Section 11 of the Act, holding that Pala Singh did not hold any surplus land and, consequently discharged the notice. Pursuant to the amendment of the Act by Ordinance No. 30 of 1975, a fresh notice was issued to Pala Singh in which objections were filed and the prescribed authority, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 22.11.1976, again determining that Pala Singh did not hold any surplus land and consequently discharged the notice. The said order became final and the matter rested at that position.

(2.) ON 28.5.1979, Pala Singh executed a registered Will bequeathing his entire holding in favour of one of his sons namely, Jog Raj Singh and did not bequeath any property to Sri Bal Raj Singh, his second son on the ground that he already had sufficient land with him. Pala Singh died on 9.10.1982 and, upon his death, as per his Will, the property devolved upon his son Jog Raj Singh. A dispute arose, and consequently a suit for declaration under Section 229B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed in which, the State was also a party and had also filed a written statement. The said suit was decreed by a judgment dated 28.2.1987 holding that the Will was validly executed and that the petitioner became a bhumidhar pursuant to the Will made in his favour by his father and that the other son, Bal Raj Singh was not entitled to any portion of the land of his father.

(3.) THE prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority while rejecting the objections of the petitioner and his brother, held that the Will dated 28.5.1979 executed by their father Pala Singh, was liable to be ignored under Section 5 (6) of the Act in view of the fact that the said Will was executed after 24.1.1971 and, on the same analogy, held that the order passed under Section 229B, having been passed after 24.1.1971, was also liable to be ignored.