AMBIKA PD. SINGH Vs. DISTT. JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution Ambika Prasad Singh, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Akbarpur and that passed in appeal against it by the District Judge, Faizabad. The dispute in the present petition is confined to the subject-matter which was involved in Civil Appeals 19, 23 and 24 of 1977 filed by the present petitioner before the District Judge. The two other connected appeals which were disposed of by the learned Judge by a common judgment were decided in favour of the present petitioner.

(2.) As far as the dispute in the present case is concerned, it is the decision in respect of the land involved in the three appeals, namely 19, 23 and 24 of 1977 alone. The appellants before the District Judge in appeal No. 19 of 1977 were Tilakdhari, Ram Chet and Ram Pher who had purchased certain plots belonging to the present petitioner under a sale deed dated June 24, 1972. The Prescribed Authority took the view that the sale deed being of a date subsequent to Jan. 24, 1971 and not being covered by any of the exceptions was liable to be ignored on account of Sec. 5 (6) of the Act. This view has been upheld by the District Judge. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a sale deed of that date was rightly so ignored and more so as it appeared to him to be not a genuine and bona fide transaction inasmuch as no consideration was paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended before me in respect of this land that the mere fact that the sale deed was of a date subsequent to Jan. 24, 1971 did not ipso facto result in a situation that it must necessarily be ignored unless there was a finding that the sale deed was not covered by one of the special circumstances enumerated in the provision protecting it. According to the submission of the learned counsel the mere fact that no sale consideration passed at the time of the registration of the sale deed was not enough to discard the sale deed without going into any further circumstances about its genuineness. A perusal of Sec. 5 (6) of the Act would show that 'where a person is asserting that the sale deed (cannot be ignored albeit being of a date beyond Jan. 24, 1971, the facts on the basis (whereof it is so contended, have to be put forward and established by him. From the judgment of the learned District Judge it does not appear that any such circumstances were placed on behalf of the petitioner before him. Whether the circumstances of the non-passing of consideration in respect of the sale deed at the time of registration was sufficient to discard the authenticity of the transaction is a question essentially depending on appraisal of evidence and it cannot be said to be an error of a nature with which this court usually interferes in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.