BRIJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 25-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
,) 
• • 
281 
BRIJENDRA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
November 25, 1980 
fR. S. SARKARJA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling .of Land Holding Act, 1960 (Act l 
of 1961)-Section 5(6) proviso (b) Effect of the Amending Act 1972 (Act 
18 of 1973) "Good Faith"-True nteaninR and scope of. 
A 
B 
The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act 1960 was 
amended by the Amending Act 
1972. Section 5(6) proviso (b) of the Act 
C 
States: 
"(6) Jn determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holders, 
any transfer of land made after the t\\'enty-fourth day of January, 
1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus 
land under this act, shall be ignored and not taken into account : 
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to-
(a) .........••..•.• 
f) 
(b) a transfer proved 
to 
the 
satisfaction 
of the 
prescribed 
authority to be in good faith and for 
ndequate 
consideration 
and 
under an irrevocable instrument not being a 
benami transaction or 
for immediate or deferred benefit of the 
tenure-holder 
of 
other 
E 
members of his family. 
The appellant so1J 25 acres of land for consideration 
by registered deeds 
dated 2nd January and 9th August, 1971. 
The Prescribed Authority under· 
the U.P. Itnposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 issued notice to 
the appellant to sho\': cause why 25.96 acres land from his holding be 
not 
declared surplus. 
The appellant filed objections stating that (i) the 
entire 
F 
land was unirrigated; (ii) there was no source of irrigation in the fields and 
he had made two sales of 25 acres for acquiring a site and constructing a 
residential house. 
The Prescribed Authority rejected the ob1ections of the 
appellant and declared the said !and as surplus. 
Aggrieved by the said order the appellant went 
in 
appeal 
before 
the 
Appellate Authority, who, partly allowed the appeal. 
The appellant filed a 
\Vrit petition in the High Court, which was dis1nissed in limine. 
By special 
leave petition, the point for consideration was whether a sale made 
by a 
tenureMholder on a date between January 24, 1971 
and June 
8, 
1973 
for 
adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a be~ 
nami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure holder 
or other 1nembers of his family, can be held to be not in 'good faith' wi~~in 
the contempiation of proviso (b) to subMsection (6) of section 5 of the_ Ced!ng 
~-\ct, merely because the tenure-holder ha<l failed to. prove 
the satisfact1.on 
of the Prescribed Authori'.y or the 
Appellate Authonty that the 
purpose I or 
G 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
which the sale was made, did not constitute an impelling necessity for the 
saJe. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, 
IIELD : It is clear that the crucial date on or fron1 V.'hich no tenure-tclder 
is enti1'1ed to hold land in excess of the 
ceiling area is 
June 8, 1973. 
Tt is 
n cardinal canon of construction that an exPression which has no 
uniform 
pr.ecisely fixed meaning, takes its colour, light and content from the context. 
[293E-F, HJ 
The benefit of clause (b) of the proviso to sub·section (6) is availab1e to 
a transfer made in good faith, that is, to a bona fide 
transfer whereby 
the 
tcnure·holder genuinely and irrevocably transfers all right, title and interest 
in the land in favour of the transferee, in the ordinary course of managen1rnt 
C 
of his affairs and which is not a co1Iusive arrangement, or device or snbter· 
tuge to enable the tenure-holder to continue to hold the surplus land or any 
reserved interest in presenti or in futuro therein, (or merely to convert it into 
cash), and thus circumvent the ban under section 5(1) of the Ceiling 
Act, 
In order to be entitled to the benefit of proviso (b) of Sec. 5(6), a tran<fer 
made in good faith, must satisfy the further conditions, (ii) to (iv), enume· 
rated in the proviso (b). [294C-F] 
()nee it is established by the transferring tenure holder that the transfer 
in question effected in the course of ordinary management of bis affairs, was 
made for adequate consideration and he had genuinely, absolutely 
and 
irre· 
vocably divested himself of all right, title and interest (including 
cultivatory 
possession) in the land in favour of the transferee, the onus under Explana-
tion II, in the absence of any circumstances suggestive of collusion, 
or 
an 
intention or design to defraud or circumvent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.