STATE OF U.P. versus AMAR SINGH ETC

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 01-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
, 
AMAR SINGH ETC. 
~ 
OCTOBER 1, 1996 
, _: .. 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (as amended 
by Act 1of1972) : 
S.5(1), Explanation I-Detennination of Ceiling area-Tenure holder c 
sold certain lands to his sons and daughters-in-law on 10.9.197(}-The father 
and the sons remained to be members of the joint f amity and were cultivating 
the land as such-Alienated land treated as land of tenure holder while 
detemiining surplus area-Held, the alienees being sons and daughters-in-law, 
they are only ostensible owners under Explanation I of s. 5(1}--Tenure holder D 
remained to be the owner and holder of the land on the date and ceiling area 
has to be computed treating him to be the owner of the land-The case falls 
under Explanation I of s.5( 1) and burden is on the alienees to establish that 
they were not ostensibly owning the land but remained in their own right as 
owner~Authorities would compute the ceiling area keeping in view the 
entitlement of eight sons of the tenure holder. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1554 of 
1980 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.79 of the Allahabad High F 
Court in W.P. No. 554 of 1978. 
A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant. 
" ""' 
~ 
Pankaj Kalra, R.P. Singh, R.K. Khanna and A.K. Pandey for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
I 
All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since all 
the respondents are either sons or daughters-in-law of the tenure-holder 
by name Kishun Singh. 
H 
165 
A 
B 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R .. 
Kishun Singh, admittedly, held 110 acres of agricultural lands. The 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was amended. Act 
1 of 1972 came into force w.e.f. January 24, 1971. The admitted pos.ition is 
that prior to the Amendment Act came into force on September 10, 1970, 
Kishun Singh had alienated by registered sale deeds his holdings in favour 
of his sons and daughters-in-law. When the computation was sought to be 
made of the surplus land under Section 5 of the Act, the respondents 
claimed lands as of their own. Accordingly, they sought to be holders of 
the lands purchased by them under the sale deeds. The Tribunals disal-
lowed it but in the Writ Petition Nos. 384/78 and batch by impugned order 
dated October 29, 1979, the High Court allowed the matters and set aside 
C the orders of the authorities. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, 
raised two-fold contention. It is contended that by operation of sub-section 
( 6) of Section 5, any alienations made on or after January 1971 are declared 
D to be null and void unless they are bona fide transactions for valuable 
consideration and are not intended to be a sham transaction or benami 
alienation. The alienation came to be made by Kishun Singh in favour of 
his sons and daughters-in-law on September 10, 1970, i.e., prior to amend-
ment Act came into force; mutation also was effected thereafter. As on the 
date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, the respondents were 
E registered holders of agricultural holdings. Kishun Singh was neither hold-
ing the land nor was he a tenure-holder of the alienations. The alienations 
being genuine transactions effected prior to. the coming into force of the 
Act, the same have to be taken into consideration and the lands covered 
by the sale deeds are required to be excluded from the holding of Kishun 
F Singh. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunals below was not correct in 
law. It is also contended that the burden of proof on the respondents would 
arise only in case the alienations were made on or after January 24, 1971; 
rather the burden is on the State to prove that they are not genuine 
transactions and are intended to defeat the provisions of the Act. No proof 
in that behalf was adduced by the State. On the other hand, the respon-
G dents have produced oral and documentary evidence through their ex-
amination and by way of the sale deeds. Lekh Pal, examined on behalf of 
the appellant, has not given any categorical statement that the respondents 
were not in possession of the lands purchased by them in their own right 
as owners. The District Judge has not given any categorical finding in that 
H behalf. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. 
-
STA1Ev. AMAR SINGH 

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