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

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 15-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
APRIL 15, 1988 
B 
[S. NATARAJAN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: 
Section 3(7) and 5(6)-Determination of Ceiling area-Computation of 
land holding-Landholder-Transfer of land by registered gift deed to 
~ 
invalid daughter-Whether extent of such transferred land to be 
C reckoned in computing total extent of land holding. 
l" 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 3 JA, 3 JB and Schedule 
IX-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960, Sections 
3(7) and 5(6)-Constitutional validity of. 
D 
In response to a notice issued under Section 10(2) of the Uttar 
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the appel-
lant contended that he was not in possession of 23.61 acres of surplus 
agricultural land as set out in the said notice, and that the authorities 
had failed to notice that he had transferred by means of a registered 
deed of gift dated January 7, 1972 an extent of 12.35 acres of land to his 
E invalid daughter who remained unmarried inspite of being 30 years old 
because she was born a crippled child, and that the lands were part of 
Abadi and, therefore, stood excluded from the operation of the said 
Ceiling Act. 
The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority did 
F 
not find favour with the aforesaid contentions, and held that the appel-
lant had failed to establish that the transfer of land in favour of his 
daughter was made in good faith, and was not intended for the 
immediate or deferred benefit of the appellant and other members of 
his family, and furthermore the transfer appeared to be a device to 
defeat the provisions of the Act. 
G 
Being aggrieved with the order of the Prescribed Authority, that 
was affirmed by the Appellate Authority the appellant approached the 
High Court by way of Writ Petition to quash the said orders. The High 
Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition. 
H 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
540 
·f-. 
, 
GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
541 
appellant: (I) though the registered deed of gift had been executed after 
the prescribed date viz. January 21, 1971, the transfer was in pur-
suance of an earlier family arrangement to provide maintenance for the 
invalid daughter and, therefore, the transfer falls outside the purview 
of Section 5(6) of the Act; (2) if the transfer attracted the operation of 
Section 5( 6) and did not constitute an excepted transfer under Clause 
(b) oftbe proviso to Section 5(6), then Section 5(6) should be held ultra 
vires Article 31-A of the Constitution; (3) the Ceiling Act is violative of 
Article 14 of the Constitution in that it discriminates between major 
unmarried daughter and minor unmarried daughter by excluding the 
former from the definition of family' under Section 3(7) of the Act. 
Dismissing the Appeal, 
HELD: l(i) From the definition of 'family' in Sectio& 3(7) it can be 
seen that a major daughter of a tenure holder, even if she is unmarried, 
is undoubtedly not treated as a member of the family. [5440 I 
(ii) The Legislature has pro.vided by section 5(6) that any extent 
of land transferred after 24.1.1971 has also to be included in the total 
extent of holding of the tenure holder for the pm·poses of calculation of 
the ceiling area, unless the transfer falls within the category of excepted 
transfers under clauses (a) or (b) of the proviso. [544EI 
In the instant case, the finding of the Prescribed Authority and 
the Appellate Authority, which has found acceptance with the High 
Court, is a finding of fact. and as such its correctness cannot be can-
vassed in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Even 
otherwise, the appellant had failed to prove that there was an earlier 
family arrangement and ifthere was one, to explain why he had delayed 
the execution of gift till after the Ceiling Act came into force, especially 
when the purported gift would only resul,t in himself and his sons bein~ 
in possession of the land and enjoying the income therefrom. [544F-G I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
2. There is, no scope for the appellant to raise any contention that 
section 5(6) is ultra vires Article 31-A. Its constitutionality cannot be 
assailed by reason of the immunity enacted in Article 31-B. ]S4SA, Bl 
G 
3. The provisions of the Ceiling Act do not discriminate between 
man and woman qua man and woman but merely organise a scheme 
where life's realism is legi

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