SANJAY KUMAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 31-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SANJA Y KUMAR AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1995 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961, a~ amended 
by U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972: 
C 
Sections 5(1), 5(6) and 5(8)-Agdcultural land-Ceiling are~Deter-
mination of-Involuntary transfer-Court sale-Effected after 24.1.1971 in 
execution of compromise decree-Ceiling authodties ign01ing transfer as 
made neither in good faith nor for adequate consideration-Held, sales, 
voluntary or involuntary, are required to pass the test of being bona fide sales 
D and for adequate consideration so as to be excluded from being computed in 
the swplus area of tenure holde,.._To be treated as void when_ taking place 
dudng continuance of surplus area proceedings. 
E 
F 
The original tenure holder was served with a notice under section 
10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land holdings Act, 1960 on 
10.10.1974. His objections were rejected. He made an· option to effect a 
change in the lands proposed to be declared as surplus. During the 
pendency of the proceedings the original tenure holder died and the name 
of his heir was substituted in the Revenue records in 1984. The prescribed . 
authority, by his order dated 22.7.1984 declared 82.49 acres of land of the 
original tenure holder as surplus. Meanwhile, father of the appellants, in 
certain money suits obtained compromise decrees against the original 
tenure holder. In order to recover the decretal amount,·75.51 acres of land 
of the judgment debtor, the original tenure holder, was put to auction on 
17.10.1975. In the meantime, the decree holder also died and his heirs, the 
appellants, purchased the said land in auction sale for Rs. 10,000. There-
G after the appellants moved the prescribed authority for setting aside the 
determination of the surplus area of the decree holder, the original tenure 
holder. The prescribed authority ignored the transfer. The appeal was also 
dismissed. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court on 
the ground that they were bona fide purchasers under a court sale which 
H was an involuntary transfer and as such they were entitled to the protec-
186 
SANJAYKR.v. STATE 
187 
tion of law. The State resisted the claim on the ground that the auction A 
sale having been made during the pendency of the ceiling proceedings 
between 10.1.974 and 22.8.1984, were null and void, and could neither be 
termed as bonafide transaction nor was it for adec1uate consideration. The 
High Court, accepting the stand of the State, dismissed the writ petition. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The auction-sale having taken place at a time when the 
proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 
1960 were pending, the transfer was void. The auction-sale cannot be 
validated merely because it was conducted on orders of the Civil Court 
especially when such sale if allowed to stand, would tend to defeat the 
provisions of the Ceiling Act. The Act would stand as a clear bar to the 
claim of decree holder in respect of the lands which were involved in the 
surplus area proceedings. [194-B-C] 
B 
c 
2.1. The sales, voluntary or involuntary, are required to pass the test D 
of being bonafide sales and for adequate consideration so as to be excluded 
from being computed in the surplus area of the tenure holder and are to 
be treated as void when taking place during continuance of surplus area 
proceedings. [194-D-E] 
2.2. In view of section 5(1) of the Act, the ceiling area is to be 
computed as the holdings stood on 24.1.1971. All transfers effected there-
after, would have to be ignored and not taken into account except as 
provided in the proviso and the Explanations. A transfer proved to the 
satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate 
consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami 
transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or 
other members of his family is excepted from the purview under sub-sec-
tion (6) of section 5. Then again, as per the non-obstante clause of sub-sec-
E 
F 
tion (8) of section 5, no tenure holder shall transfer any land held by him 
during the continuance of proceedings for detennination of surplus land in G 
-
0 l<ttion to such tenure-holder and every transfer made in contravention 
of this sub-section shall be void. This being the scheme of the

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