GYANENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15. 11. 1990, passed by respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 11 of 1989-90, Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

(2.) A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (in short the Act) was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the area of 2. 64 acres be not declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Act. In the aforesaid notice the total holding of the petitioner was shown as 20. 66 acres and permissible area of the petitioner was shown as 18. 02 acres It has been stated that the holding of respondent No. 3 was also clubbed by the prescribed authority. An objection to that effect was filed by the petitioner that the notice is wrong as there are five members in the family of the petitioner. It was also stated in the objection that Smt. Chaman Deye is not the family member of the petitioner. Further it was stated that during the consolidation operation the plot number has been changed and the notice has been given only on the basis of old plots. It has further been stated that the land which belongs to the petitioner is under the limit of ceiling area and it is not beyond the limit. A further objection was taken by the petitioner that khasra No. 4 has wrongly been included in the holding of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner Sri Deen Dayal Singh was the bhoomidhar with transferable right and has executed a Will in favour of Smt. Chaman Deye in his life time on 2. 9. 1983 and during consolidation, the name of respondent No. 3 was mutated in place of Sri Deen Dayal Singh on the basis of aforesaid Will. Therefore, the holding of Smt. Chaman Deye has wrongly been included in the holding of the petitioner.

(3.) SRI Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Will was executed on 2. 9. 1983 by the husband of respondent No. 3 and no notice was ever given to the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the Act. It was only on 1. 6. 1986 that the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the Will was executed only to save the land from the ceiling. A finding to this effect recorded by the appellate authority that after execution of Will in favour of respondent No. 3 SRI Deen Dayal Singh died after five days, therefore, it clearly goes to show that the document is not a bona fide document and has been executed only to save the land from the ceiling limit.