AHMAD HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6th January, 1975, and the appellate order dated 8th April, 1975, passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Rampur, declaring some land to be surplus treating respondent No. 4 Mohammad Yar Khan as its tenure-holder under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are sought to be quashed.

(2.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioners that Mohammad Yar Khan, respondent No. 4, had executed a sale deed on 9th September, 1971, in respect of his entire holding in favour of the petitioners and the names of the petitioners were also mutated over the land so transferred on 8th June, 1972, and consequently respondent No. 4 was not a tenure-holder on 8th June, 1973, the relevant date contemplated by Section 5(1) of the Act. According to counsel for the petitioners since respondent No. 4 was not a tenure-holder on 8th June, 1973, no proceedings for declaration of surplus land could be initiated against respondent No. 4, the fact of a person being a tenure-holder being the sine qua non for taking such proceedings. IT was urged that the petitioners had filed an objection asserting that they were the purchasers of the land of which respondent No. 4 was the tenure-holder prior to the execution of the sale deed aforesaid dated 9th September, 1971 and raising other pleas but it was not considered. In view of these facts it was submitted that the Prescribed Authority should, in place of proceeding against respondent No. 4 have treated the petitioners as tenure-holders and decided their objection before declaring any portion of the land purchased by the petitioners as surplus. Reliance on the other hand was placed on Explanation II to sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act by the Standing Counsel and it was urged that in view of that Explanation the respondent No. 4 will still be presumed to be the tenure-holder and consequently the proceedings against respondent No. 4 were valid.

(3.) IN view of the foregoing discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur, dated 6th of June, 1975, and 8th April, 1975, respectively are quashed and the Prescribed Authority, Bilaspur, respondent No. 2, is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. IN the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.