STATE OF U P Vs. MOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed for quashing the impugned order dated 16-12-1982 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Prescribed Authority Kashipur in Ceiling Case. No. 51/ 10 of 1981-82 State Vs. Moti Singh whereby the notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) issue to the petitioner was can celled. The petitioner has further as sailed the order (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12-11-1984 passed by I Additional District Judge, Nainital.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that according to the petitioner, Moti Singh tenure holder held land measuring 25. 10 acres in terms of the irrigated land, situated in village Bhagwantpur, Tehsil Kashipur, district Nainital. Notice under Section 10 (2} of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) was given to Sri Moti Singh propos ing 7. 07 acre land of his holding to be declared as surplus after giving him the benefit of 18. 03 acre irrigated land as ceiling area.

(3.) THE writ petition has been filed on the ground that the aforesaid trans actions are not bona fide and the find ings of the courts below are perverse. THE learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court has mis-read the evidence adduced by the respondents. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the Prescribed Authority has given a categorical find ing that the aforesaid transactions are bona fide and for adequate considera tion and they are not Benami. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner that the purchasers are not family members of Moti Singh. THEre is clear cut finding of the Prescribed authority that the pur chasers are not relatives of the respond ent no. 1 Moti Singh and it was suffi ciently proved by the witnesses that they are in possession of the land and that the transfers were made bona fide with adequate consideration. THE benefit was given of the provision of Proviso of Sec tion 5 (6) (b) of the Act. After excluding the land sold to the respondents, it has been held that there is no surplus land. THE Prescribed Authority by his order dated 16-12-1982 ultimately dropped the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act issued to respondent no. 1 Moti Singh.