DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. First Writ Petition:

(2.) THE facts of the first writ petition are that Surjit Singh, petitioner No. 4 was tenure holder/bhumidhar of 20.08 acres of land. He filed an application before Tehsildar purporting to be an application for mutation under Sections 33/34/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking mutation of the names of his three sons, i.e. petitioners No. 1 to 3 over an area of 9 acres of agricultural land (3 acres to each) comprised in Plot No. 6 (M). Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil and District Pilibhit allowed the application on 29.1.1982. THE case was registered as Case No. 30 of 1981. Though the said order, 9 acres of land of Surjeet Singh was mutated in the names of his three sons (3 acres each). It was stated by the petitioners that it was done in pursuance of oral family settlement/partition. A.D.M., (Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit started proceedings for determination of stamp duty on the family settlement. THE case was registered as Case No. 30 of 1986-87, State v. Devendra Singh and others. A.D.M. held that family settlement was included in the definition of instrument. It was further held that father transferred the land to his three sons illegally without getting any sale consideration and without executing any sale deed and that no father could transfer his land during his life time to his sons on the basis of settlement. Accordingly, it was held that 800 times of the land revenue, i.e. an amount of Rs. 2040/- was payable due to transfer of land by the father to each of his sons. THE case was decided by A. D. M. on 20.10.1986.1 the said order, it was further held that the arrangement was made to avoid the imposition of ceiling as Surjeet Singh held more land than the maximum permitted under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act). It was further held that the Naib Tehsildar also misused his power and jurisdiction by allowing the mutation. Strong observations were made in the said order against Lekhpal and Naib Tehsildar. Ultimately, an amount of Rs. 2040/- along with five times penalty, i.e. Rs.10,200/- was imposed as stamp duty and penalty against each of the three sons of Surjeet Singh, i.e. petitioners No. 1 to3. At the end of the order, it was directed that the copy of the order should be sent to D.M. for perusal and to S.D.M. for taking action against concerned Lekhpal and Naib Tehsildar and proceedings under Ceiling Act should be initiated and after enquiry order should be passed for cancellation of mutation order.

(3.) AGAINST the said order, four revisions were filed. The revisions filed against the order of A.D.M. which is subject matter of this writ petition and the order of A.D.M. which is subject matter of the earlier writ petition were consolidated. Revisions were numbered as Stamp Revisions No. 390(P) to 395(P) of 1986- 87. C.C.RA/Board of Revenue through common judgment dated 14.12.1990 disposed of all the revisions and set aside only the direction of payment of penalty. The points involved in both the writ petitions :