LexRAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. A v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. OCTOBER 8, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B Tenancy and Land Laws : UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960-Sections 5(8) and 10(2)-Tenure holder-Surplus land Notice dated 6th February 1974, C proposing certain area as surplus land-Order of prescribed authority confirming the notice and declaring certain area as surplus land-Appeal by tenure holder-Amendment of Act-Fresh notice issued to tenure holder- Prescribed Authority fisposed of the case after hearing the matter-Sale deed dated 26th August 1974-Transfer of certain land in favour of appellants-Review application by appellants before Addi. District Judge- D Not to declare the land transferred in their favour as surplus land- App/ication rejected-Dismissal of writ petition by High Court-On appeal. Held, sale deeds executed were void in view of the prohibition contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 5-Notice declaring surplus area already issued-- Proceedings pending before prescribed authority-Land covered by sale E deed to be treated as part of the land of tenure holder. Section 12-A-Choice of tenure holder while declaring surplus area-- To be first taken into consideration by the prescribed authority-If not possible he would proceed to leave the area determined by him, with the tenure holder and take over the other area as surplus area-Thus 'discretion' F and not 'compulsion' which constitutes the core of the statutory provision. Respondent No. 4-tenure holder was holding considerable agricultural land. A notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to him on 6th February 1974, proposing certain area to be declared as surplus. The tenure holder did not file any G objection and consequently certain land was declared as surplus by prescribed authority. While appeal against this order was pending, the Act was amended and as a consequence a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the amended Act was issued to the tenure holder. The prescribed Authority after hearing the parties disposed of the case. On challenge, the surplus are of the tenure H 177 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A holder was reduced. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 by a registered sale deed dated 26th August, 1974, transferred certain land in favour uf appellant No. 1 and one 'J'. 'J' in turn, transferred that land to appellants No. 2 & 3. The appellants who were not parties before the prescribed Authority filed a review application B before the Addi. District Judge, praying that the surplus area may not be taken out of the land transferred in their favour. The application was rejected. The writ petition before the High Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. c Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The sale deeds executed in favour of appellants were void in view of Sub-section (8) of Section 5 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The land covered by the aforesaid sale deeds shall, therefore, be treated to be part of the land held by respondent No. 4 and it D would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the prescribed authority to take or carve out the surplus area from any land of respondent No. 4, notwithstanding that any portion of that land was covered by sale deeds allegedly executed in favour of the appellants. (185-G; 186-D] 1.2. The prohibition contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 5 that E during the pendency of proceedings under the Act, there cannot be any transfer, is absolute. Since, in the instant case, a notice had already been issued under Section 9 of the Act and the proceedings for determination of_ ceiling and surplus area were pending before the prescribed Authority, the sale deeds in question were obviously void being hit by the provision contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the Act. (185-B; 186-B-C] F 2. The relevant date under the Act which constitutes the basis for determining the ceiling or surplus area of a tenure-holder is 24th January, 1971. Sale deed, if any, executed by the tenure-holder after the date shall be ignored. The sale deeds executed by tenure-holders after 24th of January, G 1971, have been classified into two distinct categories : (i) Sale deeds executed by the tenure-holder after 24th of January, 1971, without the proceedings under the Act for determination of the ceiling and surplus area havi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.