VIDYAWATI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts in brief are these : The petitioner was issued a notice u/s 10(2) of the Act and she filed objections. The objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority and then an appeal was preferred which was decided by the 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, by his judgment a true copy whereof is Annexure 'A' to the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, learned counsel for the State has made his submission. The grievance of the petitioner is in relation to certain plots which were leased out by her by a deed dated 25-2-1970 in favour of the respondents' second set and subsequently four gift deeds were executed on 18-4-1972 where by the land covered by the said lease was transferred in favour of the respondents' second set. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below did not accept the said transactions and now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition. In view of the Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in writ petition No. 915 of 1975 Fateh Mohammad v. District Judge and others, it has now become finally settled that gift deeds cannot be extended the benefit of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 5(6). In this view of the matter it is obvious that the gift deeds in question which were admittedly executed after 24th January, 1971 cannot be saved with the aid of the said proviso to section 5(6). Gift is undoubtedly a transfer and therefore section 5(6) will be applicable to the same and in view of the legislative injunction contained in the said provision the transaction was bound to be ignored and could not be taken into consideration. Learned counsel contended that the Patta was of 1970 but that in no way affected the title to the land in question. The lesson always retains his owner-ship and title over the lease property, therefore, it could not be said that the land covered by the Patta had passed out of the ownership of the record tenure- holder. THIS petition fails and and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.