LexDILAWAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
DILAWAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
v.
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD
SEPTEMBER 13, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960 : Sections 5,
10(2).
Swplus ceiling area-Computation of-{;ift of land-Sham transaction
to avoid ceiling imposed-Lands covered by gift deed held not to be excluded
from landowners holdings.
In response to a notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P.
D Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the appellant filed his
return wherein he mentioned that he gifted certain lands to his grand-
nephew. The Prescribed Authority as well as the First Appellant Court held
that the gift was a Sham transaction to avoid the ceiling im,Posed under
Section 5 of the Act, therefore, the lands covered by the gift deed were not
E to be excluded from the holdings of the appellant. The High Court also
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
F
G
In appeal to this Court on the question whether the appellant was
entitled to have the lands covered under the gift deed excluded from his
holdings:
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD: Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition on Land Holdings Act, 1960
postulates that on and from the date of its enforcement, no tenure-holder
shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to hold an area
in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, notwitbstanding anything
contained in any other law, custom or usage for the time being in force,
or agreement, to the contrary. When the Act had come into force and
declared that any transfer or partition effected on or after the twentieth
day of August, 1959 shall be ignored and shall not be taken into account,
H the statutory provision required that the excess land shall be computed as
630
•
-
DILA WAR SINGH v. ADDL. DISTI. JUDGE
631
if the land held by the declarant on or before the twentieth day of August, A ·
1959 was not affected by virtue of any transfer or partition effected
thereafter, and surplus shall be computed, despite such transfer. In view
of the finding recorded by the courts below that the gift deed was a sham
document in law, it does not have any existence which binds the Govern-
ment in determining the surplus area. Since it was a sham document, the B
validation of any transfer or partition effected on or after January 24, 1971
is of no avail to the appellant. (632-F-H, 633-A-B]
Ramdhar Singh v. Prescribed Authority & Ors., (1994) Supp. 3 SCC
702, held inapplicable.
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2234 of
1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.78 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 522 of 1978.
Ravindra Bana, for the Appellants
D
R.C. Verma, Ms. Reena Jain for AK. Srivastava for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Pursuant to the notice under s.10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling E
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), the appellant had
submitted his return. Therein he had stated that on May 6, 1965, he had
gifted under Khasra No. 266 eighteen biswas 'Pukhta', under No. 613 two
bighas, seven biswas and ten biswansis; under No. 616 three bighas, sixteen
biswas and six biswansis etc. etc. All the authorities concurrently found that F
the gift is a sham transaction to avoid the ceiling imposed under s.5 of the
Act. The, High Court in its order dated 10.11.1978 made in C.M.W.P. No.
522/78 dismissed the petition agreeing with the finding thus :
"In my view, the Prescribed Authority and the Court below which
affirmed the decision of the Prescribed Authority on the controver-
G
sy have recorded findings which cannot be said to be vitiated by
any jurisdictional error. They were entitled to reach their own
conclusion and this court in its writ jurisdiction cannot substitute
its own judgment for the decision of the Prescribed Authority on
the ground that the said decision or the judgment of the lower
appellate court should not have been so pronounced on the basis H
A
B
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
of material and evidence on the record. The next point urged was
that plot no.992 is Abadi land. Again, I find that the
necessary discussion is there in the order of the Prescribed
Authority and in the judgment of the lower appellate court and
a finding of fact has been recorded which cannot be disturbed in
the writ jurisdiction."
Mr. Ravindra Bana, learned coExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.