HANUMANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 10, sub-clause (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause why 38.88 acres irrigated land may not be declared as surplus area. The petitioner had filed an objection with the allegation that Smt. Bari Dulaiya was not a legally married wife and the land standing in her name was wrongly treated as the land of the petitioner, hence the surplus area indicated in the notice was patently wrong. Another material objection raised on behalf of the petitioner-objector was that he had transferred some plots through registered deed for adequate consideration and the sold land has been wrongly included in the ceiling limit of the petitioner. The petitioner had raised other objections also which are not material for the purposes of the present writ petition. The Prescribed Authority through its judgment date 30th June, 1976 declared 38.38 acres land of the petitioner as surplus area.' Aggrieved by the decision of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 29-11-1976. Thereafter the petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the appellate authority on the following grounds:- Firstly according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the appellate authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in ignoring the sale deed dated 12-4-1972 on erroneous grounds. The appellate authority has ignored the oral evidence on the record while ignoring the sale deed dated 12-4-1972. Secondly the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no legal marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Bari Dulaiya, hence the land standing in the name of Smt. Bari Dulaiya was wrongly treated as the land of the petitioner and thus the determination of surplus area of the petitioner stands vitiated in law.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State has refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. He has submitted that the transfer deed relied upon by the petitioner is of later date than 24th January, 1971, hence it was rightly ignored by the ceiling authorities. He has further submitted that the petitioner and Smt. Bari Dulaiya were living as husband and wife for sufficiently long time, hence the land standing in the name of Smt. Bari Dulaiya was rightly treated as the land of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to sub-clause (6) of Section 5 of U. P.. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, which runs thus :-