INDRAPAL SINGH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land of Holdings Act was initiated against Dilawar Singh asking him to show-cause as to why 9 bighas 14 biswas and 9 biswansi of irrigated land should not be declared as surplus. Sri Dilawar Singh filed his objetions denying holding of any surplus land and submitted that vide two sale-deeds dated 19-9-1970, he had transferred the land pertaining to Khasra No. 170 consisting of 8 bighas, 11 biswas and 7 biswansi. Similarly, Khasra No. 106 was transferred in favour of Vimla Devi vide sale-deed dated 25-8-1971 whose name was also mutated in the revenue records and that the said person was in cultivatory possession. It was also alleged that he had executed a registered will deed dated 27-5-1974 in favour of his grand-son Indrapal and Amar Deep. It was also alleged that plot Nos. 1020, 1022, 1034 and 1036 were grove land and therefore, such land could not be included as surplus irrigated land.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority, vide an order dated 28-8-1974, partly allowed the objection, holding that the sale-deed dated 9- 9-1970 was genuine and that the land was actually transferred. THE prescribed authority, also found that only 11 bighas, 10 biswas and 50 biswansi of land was a grove land and that 4 bighas and 15 biswas was cultivatory land and, in this way, the prescribed authority declared 1 bigha 3 biswas and 8 biswansi as surplus land. Sri Dilawar, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, filed an appeal and submitted that the entire area of 15 bighas 10 biswas should be treated as a grove and that 4 bighas and 15 biswas had wrongly been excluded from the grove. THE appellate authority rejected the contention of the petitioner holding that even though 4 bighas and 15 biswas of land was recorded as grove in the revenue records, nonetheless, since the land was being cultivated, the same could not be treated as a grove. Sri Dilawar Singh filed a Writ Petition No. 1792 of 1975 which was allowed by a judgment dated 4-5-1978 and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to decide afresh in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. THE High Court held that merely because a portion of the land was being cultivated would not exclude the said land from the definition of a grove land as contemplated under Section 3 (8) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the genuineness of the sale-deed dated 9-9- 1970 cannot be taken into consideration by the authorities under the Ceiling Act and the land transferred by the sale-deed was liable to be excluded from the total holding of the petitioners. Further, the sale-deed executed in favour of Vimla Devi, even though it was executed after 24-1-1971, nonetheless, the sale-deed was bona fidely executed and that Vimla Devi was in cultivatory possession and her name was also mutated in the revenue records, as such, the Prescribed Authority committed an error in ignoring the sale-deed merely on the basis that it was executed after 24-1-1971. Further, the authorities have committed a manifest error in holding that no evidence was filed to show that some of the plots were grove land. THE appellate authority committed an error in holding that since less number of trees per bigha were existing on the plot in question, the land could not be treated as a grove land.