PRAMOD KUMARS Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER ADMN GORKHAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 23.4.1986 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 26.4.1989 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby objections filed by the petitioners and appeal filed by them were dismissed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority respectively constituted under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).

(2.) The brief and relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to respondent No. 4 Sri Shatrughan Singh who was recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute calling upon him to show cause as to why an area measuring 3 Bighas, 3 Biswas and 13 Dhoors out of his holding be not declared as surplus. By order dated 20.12.1974, the prescribed authority declared the aforesaid area as surplus but subsequently on an application made by respondent No. 4, the order dated 20.12.1974 was set aside on 13.1.1975. The respondent No. 4 thereafter filed objection against the aforesaid notice and claimed that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. The respondent No. 4 produced, oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence on the record by order dated 6.2.1975 declared an area measuring 3 Bighas,8 Biswas and 15 Dhoors as surplus.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the appellate authority, During the pendency of the said appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioners made application for their impalement as party in the case. The appeal filed by the respondent No, 4 was ultimately allowed by the appellate authority by Judgment and order dated 12.3.1979. The application filed by the petitioners for their impalement was also allowed and the case was remanded to the prescribed authority for decision afresh. The prescribed authority again by judgment and order dated 5.6.1985 confirmed its earlier order dated 6.2.1975. However, the said order was set aside on an application filed by the petitiners. The case was restored to its original number. Petitioners were permitted to file their objections. Petitioners thereafter filed objection claiming that the respondent No. 4 has executed a sale deed dated 13.4.1973 whereby half land of his holding situate at village Arda, district Basti was transferred in their favour and rest of the land was thereafter transferred in their favour by the sons of respondent No. 4, namely, Om Prakash and Harvinder Pratap Singh through registered sale deeds dated 5.11.1974 and 20.9.1975. On the basis of the sale deed, it was claimed that the name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue papers. The sale deeds were alleged to have been executed in good faith and were not benami they were as such protected under clause (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. Alternatively, it was pleaded that in case any land out of holding of Shatrughan Singh (respondent No. 4) and his sons were liable to be declared as surplus. The same may be declared from the land situate in village Rudhauli Kalan and the land covered by the aforesaid sale deeds was liable to be excluded from their holding. Petitioners in support of their case have filed oral and documentary evidence including the registered sale deeds and the document relating to purchase of the Tractor etc. The prescribed authority however, taking the view sale deeds were executed after 24.1.1971 and were also hit by sub-section (8) of Section 5 dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner by his judgment and order dated 23.4.1986.