KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief are these:

(3.) Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support of the same Sri Rajesh Ji Verma learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below wrongly rejected the sale deed which the petitioner had executed in favour of one Smt. Saroj Kumari on 17th March, 1972. The learned counsel submitted that in the earlier proceedings the Prescribed Authority had accepted the said transaction. He next contended that the evidence on the record has not been considered and discussed by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate Court below. He further contended that his client was at the relevant time detained under MISA and two applications were made on his behalf to the Prescribed Authority praying that he should be summoned to appear before the Prescribed Authority in support of his case but no orders were passed on these applications. He placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in 1978 All LJ 597 (Mewa Devi Vs. State) where it has been laid down that Sec. 5 (6) (b) aims to hit transfers by which a tenure holder ostensibly transfers land to retain ownership and control of it. The learned Judge further observed that when the Legislature speaks of a transfer being not proved to be in good faith, it contemplates a transfer being vitiated on account of something akin to fraud. Lastly, the learned counsel placed reliance on 1978 All LJ 724 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. State) where it has been laid down as under (at p. 727):-