# Atul Behari Lal & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1489
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-30
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1001056 of 1993
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-behari-lal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54669
- **Pages:** 23

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 80,775. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1489
Therefore, in the interest of justice and to balance the equities, we deem it appropriate that
a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- be quantified over and above to what has been awarded as medical
expenses and enhanced compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.

ORDER AND DIRECTIONS

31. We accordingly modify the order impugned to the extent that the petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- in total (Rs.5,00,000/- as enhanced compensation and
Rs.4,00,000/- as medical expenses). The Corporation/Nigam is directed to disburse the aforesaid
amount to the claimant-petitioner within four weeks, failing which the claimant-petitioner will be
entitled for 9% interest over the said amount towards delayed payment from the date of impugned
order

32. In view of above, WRIT - C No. - 61435 of 2010 stands allowed andWrit - C No.
51093 of 2010 stands dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1489
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1001056 of 1993

Atul Behari Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the disputed holding recorded in the name of late Sri Daulat Singh was his exclusive
holding or was ancestral joint Hindu family property in which the petitioners had acquired
interest by birth;
(ii) Whether the authorities below correctly determined the nature of the land as irrigated under
Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; and
(iii) Whether the computation of surplus area was made in accordance with law after correctly
considering grove, abadi and usar land as well as the number of family members entitled to
additional ceiling area.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - ss.4-A, 10(2), 13 - Ceiling proceedings -
Notice under Section 10(2) issued to legal heirs of deceased tenure-holder Daulat Singh treating
46.86 acres as surplus land - Petitioners contended that disputed land was ancestral 'sir' and
'khud kasht' property of their grandfather Bankey Bihari Lal and that late Sri Daulat Singh was
recorded only in a representative capacity on behalf of the joint Hindu family - Further case of
petitioners that petitioner no.1 was born prior to the date of vesting and had acquired
coparcenary rights by birth; substantial area had been wrongly treated as irrigated; and grove,
abadi and usar land as well as entitlement to additional ceiling area on account of family
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
composition had not been correctly considered - Prescribed Authority declared surplus land and
appellate authority affirmed the order - Failure to adjudicate specific objections and record
findings on material issues - Ignored binding precedents governing ancestral holdings - Cryptic
and non-speaking appellate order - Orders vitiated by perversity and patent illegality - Remand
for fresh determination :

Held: (I) Mere entry in the revenue records does not confer exclusive title where the land is alleged to be
ancestral 'sir' and 'khud kasht' land and rights by birth had already accrued under Mitakshara law prior to
vesting. Court held that the authorities below were not justified in treating the entire holding as the exclusive
holding of late Sri Daulat Singh merely because revenue records stood in his sole name. Neither the
Prescribed Authority nor the Appellate Authority recorded any categorical finding upon the evidence as to
whether the disputed holding was ancestral 'sir' and 'khud kasht' land. It was the admitted position that
petitioner no.1, having been born prior to the date of vesting, was entitled to be treated as a co-sharer.
Consequently, the entire premise on which ceiling proceedings were initiated against the legal heirs treating
late Sri Daulat Singh as exclusive tenure-holder could not be sustained. The authorities completely failed to
advert to the said vital jurisdictional issue and thereby misdirected themselves in law.
(II) Court held that Section 4-A prescribes a definite statutory mechanism for determining whether land is
irrigated or unirrigated. Such determination is required to be founded upon relevant khasras of 1378, 1379
and 1380 Fasli and, wherever necessary, local inspection. The Prescribed Authority did not discuss the
relevant khasras nor record any finding satisfying the requirements of Section 4-A. Court held that the
determination of irrigated land was arbitrary and contrary to the statutory procedure prescribed under Section
4-A.
(III) Petitioners specifically pleaded that substantial area constituted grove land, abadi land and usar land
and had further claimed entitlement to additional ceiling area on account of family composition, existence of a
major son and other family members. Those were specific factual objections requiring adjudication. Neither
the Prescribed Authority nor the Appellate Authority recorded any reasoned finding on these objections.
Impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for fresh
adjudication after determining: (E-5)
[Paras 29-48]
CASE LAW CITED
Dilip Singh and Others v. Commissioner, Agar Division, Agar and Others, MANU/UP/1759/2012;
Chetanya Raj Singh v. II Additional Civil Judge and Others, MANU/UP/0381/1977;
Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/UP/0986/1978;
Gaya Prasad v. Prescribed Authority, MANU/UP/0793/1979;
Vishwa Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 1978 SCC OnLine All 637;
Chhattar Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1978 SCC OnLine All 743;
Sheela Devi and Others v. Lal Chand and Another, (2006) 8 SCC 581;
Shyamvir Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 1978 AWC 263;
Shital Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 1978 AWC 449;
Ram Charan v. State of U.P. and Others, 1979 All LJ 166.

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ;
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
List of Keywords
4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1491
Ceiling proceedings; ancestral property; sir land; khud kasht; coparcenary rights; rights by birth; joint Hindu
family; exclusive holding; irrigated land; Section 4-A; grove land; abadi land; usar land; surplus land; burden
of proof; revenue entries; speaking order; non-speaking order; remand.
CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 30.04.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Upper Collector, Kheri in proceedings
under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, affirmed by appellate order
dated 07.04.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Awadhesh Kumar, Ajaiy Kumar Mishra, Ayush Srivastava, Devi Prasad Maurya, Hari
Om Singh, Kapil Dev Chaubey, Manish Mani Sharma, S. Mirza, Sandeep Kumar, Shashwat Srivastava, Uma
Shankar Sahai, Vijay Kumar Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C., Prahlad
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary,
learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order
dated 30.04.1988 passed by the prescribed authority (Ceiling) / Upper Collector, Kheri contained as
Annexure-22 and the order of Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated
07.04.1993 contained as Annexure-25 to the writ petition.

3. The present dispute pertains to the land situated in village Dhakha and Grant No.10,
Pargana Kukra, Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Kheri. The petitioners were served with a notice under
Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) being legal
heirs of deceased tenure holder Sri Daulat Singh, whereby 46.86 acres of land was declared to be
surplus.

4. Joint objection was filed by the petitioners on 12.08.1985 praying for quashing the
ceiling notice on the ground that disputed land was recorded in the name of Late Sri Daulat Singh
in a representative capacity of a joint hindu family but he was not the sole owner of the said land.
The disputed land was 'Sir', 'Khud Kasht' and grove land before enforcement of U.P. ZA& LR Act.

5. The petitioner No.1 was born on 01.11.1939, petitioner No.2 was born in 1956 and
petitioner No.3 was born in 1958. Therefore, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were co-parcener of the said
ancestral holding of Babu Bankey Bihari Lal (grandfather of the petitioners) and petitioner Nos.1 &
2 and their father Late Sri Dualat Singh each had 1/3rd share.

6. Since Late Sri Daulat Singh, representative of a joint hindu family was father of the
petitioners, therefore, there was no need to get their rights declared during his lifetime. Thus, there
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would be three independent tenure holders each having 1/3rd share of the disputed land and none of
them would fall under the ceiling limits and thus, no notice against them could be issued.

7. 27 acres of land was erroneously shown as irrigated land. Owing to the number of family
members of petitioner Nos.1 & 2(petitioners themselve, their wives,each of them having 2 minor
sons and 2 minor unmarried daughters) they were liable to get 5 acres each extra land. Also the
petitioner No.3 was major on the relevant ceiling date and on that basis he was entitled to get 5
acres.

8. 72.06 acres of land was erroneously shown as irrigated land while the entire land was
unirrigated under Section 4A of Ceiling Act. The petitioners further stated following details:

 - 15 acres grove in Grant No.10

 - 10 acres grove in Dhaka

 - Total 25 acres grove however in ceiling papers the area of grove land was captured
incorrectly

 - 4 acres abadi land

 - 10 acres usar land

9. The Naib Tehsildar (Ceiling), Lakhimpur filed his reply on 22.12.1985 on behalf of
State to the objections filed by the petitioners stating that the entire land belonged to Sri Daulat
Singh and since the petitioners were his legal heirs, hence, the notice under ceiling provisions was
issued to them thereby dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners.

10. Before the prescribed authority (Ceiling) case No.58/24 (State Vs. Late Daulat Singh
s/o Banke Bihari Lal through LRs under Section 10 (2) of Ceiling Act was registered in respect of
land situated in at village Dhakha and village Grant No.10, Pargana Kukra, Tehsil Lakhimpur,
District Kheri. In CLH forms, total land of Daulat Singh was stated to be 79-33 acres out of which
2-23 acres was stated to be Abadi.

11. On behalf of the State, Sri Ram Swarup, Lekhpal of village Dhakha, Sri Ram Bilas
Gupta, Lekhpal of village Grant No.10 and Sri Shyama Charan, ARK, were produced and their
statements were taken on record.

12. The prescribed authority (Ceiling) / Upper Collector, Kheri (respondent No.3) vide
order dated 30.04.1988 declared 33.076 acres land in irrigated terms of the petitioners as surplus.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of prescribed authority, the petitioners filed appeal under Section
13(1) of Ceiling Act before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. Along with said
appeal, the petitioners also prayed to stay the operation and execution of order dated 30.04.1988
passed by respondent No.3.
4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1493
13. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow was pleased to
stay the operation of the order dated 30.04.1988 and all sorts of further ceiling proceedings on
25.06.1988 till next date and thereafter, the stay was extended on every date and it was operative
till the pronouncement of the judgment.

14. On 07.04.1993, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of prescribed authority (Ceiling) / Upper Collector,
Kheri dated 30.04.1988. It is noteworthy that in the order dated 07.04.1993 no adequate findings
were given by respondent No.2 with respect to the issues framed by respondent No.3 vide order
dated 03.04.1988.

15. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision of the court below
is against the law and facts of the case. The court below has wrongly declared 33.076 acres of land
in irrigated terms as surplus while no land was to be declared surplus. The court below has
misrepresented and disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellant and relied upon the
statements of Sri Ram Bilas Gupta, Lekhpal of Grant No.10, Ram Swarup, Lekhpal of Dhaka
without any proof.

16. He next submitted that the court below has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the
shoulders of the appellant while the same onus is on the State to prove the facts. The court below
has not discussed the entire evidence on record adduced by the appellant but based its finding on
imagination conjectures and surmises.

17. He further submitted that the court below has wrongly held that the entire disputed land
was not an ancestral holding but it was owned by Late Sri Daulat Singh father of the appellants
while it was acquired by Late Babu Bankey Behari Lal the grandfather of the appellants and the
appellants were co-tenants alongwith their father Sri Daulat Singh who was recorded in revenue
papers in representative capacity.

18. He submitted that the court below has wrongly interpreted the law of Sir and Khud
Kasht and Zamindari Abolition Act and in nay case one son will be co-tenant alongwith his father
Late Sri Daulat Singh and as such he will be co-tenant to the extent of 1/2 share.

19. He next submitted that the court below has erred in holding that appellant No.1 and 2
will not be entitled to get separately while they are entitled to get 1/3 share each. The court below
has erred in holding that the tenure holder had two adult son and one minor son at the time of
applicability of Ceiling Act.

20. He further submitted that the court below has wrongly relied upon the commission
report partially but relied upon the statements of Lekhpals of village Grant No.10 and Dhaka. The
Court below has also misinterpreted Section 4A of Ceiling Act whereby burden of proof lies on the
State to file Khasra of 1378, 1979 and 1380 F and to inspect the spot and to prove that the disputed
land is irrigated one in accordance with Section 4A of the Act.
1494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. He submitted that the court below has erred in holding that in village Dhaka no grove
situates whereas 10 acres of land in village Dhaka is grove. The court below has also erred in
holding that there is only 2 acres of Abadi land whereas 4 acres of abadi land is one the spot.

22. He lastly submitted that the court below has wrongly calculated the numbers of family
members and relates for them as the appellant No.3 is major and he is also entitled to get. In
declaring the land surplus, the court below has miscalculated the area and has wrongly declared
33.076 acres of land to be surplus. The findings arrived at by the court below are against the oral
and documentary evidence on record. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon
following judgments:

 a) Dilip Singh and Ors. Vs. Commissioner Agar Division Agar and Ors.;
MANU/UP/1759/2012

 b) Chetanya Raj Singh Vs. II Addl. Civil Judge and ors.; MANU/UP/0381/1977.

 c) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; MANU/UP/0986/1978.

 d) Gaya Prasad Vs. Prescribed Authority; MANU/UP/0793/1979

 e) Vishwa Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1978 SCC Online All 637.

 g) Chhattar Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 1978 SCC
Online All 743

 f) Sheela Devi and others Vs. Lal Chand and Another; (2006) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 581.

21. The Act indisputably would prevail over the old Hindu law. We may notice that
Parliament, with a view to confer right upon the female heirs, even in relation to the joint family
property, enacted the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. Such a provision was enacted as far back in
1987 by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The succession having opened in 1989, evidently, the
provisions of the Amendment Act, 2005 would have no application. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of
the Act governs the law relating to succession on the death of a coparcener in the event the heirs are
only male descendants. But, the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act creates
an exception. First son of Babu Lal viz. Lal Chand, was, thus, a coparcener. Section 6 is an
exception to the general rules. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the respondent-plaintiffs
to show that apart from Lal Chand, Sohan Lal will also derive the benefit thereof. So far as the
second son, Sohan Lal is concerned, no evidence has been brought on record to show that he was
born prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

22. Thus, it was the half-share in the property of Babu Ram, which would devolve upon all
his heirs and legal representatives as at least one of his sons was born prior to coming into force of
the Act."
4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1495
23. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that in regard to Section 4, onus
lies on the tenure holder to prove that which land is irrigated and non irrigated. He also submitted
that under Section 4A of the Ceiling Act, there is a provision to look into other documents relied
upon by the State and in view of that CLH form 41 was produced which shown the irrigated and
non irrigated land. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

 a) Shyamvir Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and others; 1978 AWC 263.

 b) Shital SIngh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1978 AWC 449.

 c) Ram Charan Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1979 All. L.J. 166.

24. In reply to the arguments advanced by learned Additional CSC, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that onus lies on the State to prove that the land is irrigated or un-irrigated by
producing khasra of 1378, 1379 and 1980 and if not available, inspection is to be made by the
prescribed authority himself to ascertain the irrigated and non irrigated land and facility available
of canal or private tubewell or government tubewell, which has not been done in the present case,
therefore, reliance placed on other documents and CLH form 41, which is 15 years old paper or is
of before 1970, has no meaning while the Ceiling Act came into year 1985.

25. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record as well as law reports cited by learned counsel for the parties.

26. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments are
being quoted below:

 Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners:

 a) Dilip Singh and Ors. (Supra):

 "9. Law is well settled that in case of a Hindu as far as his interest in ancestral property
is concerned the same accrues right from the date of conception in the womb and the same does not
wait till the child is born. Even if he may not be in actual control of the property, he has inalienable
right to own the said property. So while determining the shares in the said holding, right of the
such child has also to be looked into. In the present case, admitted fact is that the petitioners No. 2
and 3 had acquired their respective rights in the ancestral property prior to Ist of July, 1952 and
had clear interest in the property as such it could not be said to be exclusive property of the
petitioner No. 1. It was by way of necessity the Prescribed Authority was required to examine this
aspect of the matter at the time of initiating ceiling proceedings under section 10(2) of the Act,
1960. This aspect had to be looked into irrespective of any subsequent proceedings being initiated
by the petitioners to define their shares. Limited role of Prescribed authority was to determine the
surplus land by reference to the number of owners holding such land. As already stated hereinsupra petitioners No. 2 and 3 had acquired their right in this property prior to 1.7.1952 and had
interest in the property. This aspect has been consistently ignored by the Prescribed Authority even
though specific objection was taken before the Prescribed Authority.
1496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 10. 11. Reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioners on the case of Vishwa Nath
Singh v. State of U.P. [1978 All. L.J. 1085 : 1978 (4) ALR 945.] wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in paragraph No. 12 has held as under:

 "In my opinion the Prescribed Authority has misappropriated the contentions raised on
behalf of the petitioner tenure holder. The relevant thing to be determined in the case is as to
whether the plots claimed by the petitioner were coming down in his family from the time of his
ancestor and whether the petitioner's son Madan Gopal was born before Ist July, 1952. If the
aforesaid two questions are answered in the affirmative the petitioner's son Madan Gopal would
get a right in Sir or Khudkasht land by virtue of his birth in the family. It is immaterial whether his
name was entered over the disputed plots or not, or he was not in actual possession over his share
in the plots. Even if the petitioner was in possession over the ancestral property, the rights of his
son Madan Gopal would not extinguish in the disputed plots if the disputed plots were coming
down in the family from the time of grand father or great grand father or even from before them. It
is true that the devolution would be governed by the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act after the
enforcement of Act 1 of 1951, but on 30.6.1952 the persons who could in law be sir holder or
Khudkasht holder would not lose their rights due to enforcement of Act 1 of 1951. The Prescribed
Authority appears to have failed to examine the claim of the petitioner from this angle. The
appellate authority has not dealt with this aspect of the matter. Since the judgments of the ceiling
authorities are patently erroneous on the questions of the claim put forward by the petitioner that
his plots were unirrigated, I think that the appellate authority should also examine the claim of the
petitioner that his son Madan Gopal has a share in the plots indicated by him (the petitioner) as
ancestral property."

 19. From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly emerges that the Prescribed Authority has
not examined the case in its true legal perspective by ignoring the right of the petitioners No. 2 and
3 to be joint holder of the ancestral property from the date of their birth. It was incumbent upon
him that while determining the ceiling area it should have taken into consideration the land which
had fallen into the share of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as owners. As a matter of fact what is being
construed as assigning of shares before the consolidation officer is infact a partition of the
property. Partition can be effected only where the ownership is joint. Petitioners acquired
ownership right prior to 1.7.1952. Partition was effected only for the purposes of assigning their
respective shares. This could not be construed to be a transfer as held by the Prescribed Authority.
For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby
quashed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned authorities to determine the shares of the
petitioners No. 2 and 3 and after such determination the authorities shall determine as to whether
they hold the land in excess of the ceiling limit in accordance with law."

 b) Chetanya Raj Singh (Supra):

 "4. The 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, however, dismissed both the appeals by his
order dated 19th August, 1976. He came to the conclusion that Hari Raj Singh and Ravi Raj Singh
being just minors of one or two years, were not in cultivatory possession and, therefore, they could
not be the bhumidhars of the plots in question and so the petitioner alone was the tenure holder of
the disputed plots. The contention of the petitioner that by virtue of the family settlement on 20th
4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1497
June, 1969, the entire land of the family was partitioned and the same was recovered by court in
the suit filed by Hari Raj Singh in 1972 was also repelled by the learned Judge in view of the
provisions of Section 5(7) of the Ceiling Act, as that was a partition of land after the 24th day of
January, 1971. The learned Judge also repelled the contention of the petitioner that the land of his
wife Smt. Indra Kumari was her Stridhan on the ground that Smt. Indra Kumari had given her
consent to include the land held by her in the ceiling area applicable to her husband, the petitioner.
He took the view that the word ?tenure holder? has been defined to mean the holder of a holding
and the word ?person? has been defined to include a family. Thus a family is an unit at par with
the individual and the term ?family? in section 2(7) of the Ceiling Act, which includes himself or
herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or
husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters). So, the land held by
them is liable to be aggregated in the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner. The transfer made
by Smt. Indra Kumari of the land situate in village Kinhus to Rani Laj Kumari was ignored, as the
same was made after the 24th day of January, 1971, and it was not proved to the satisfaction of the
Prescribed Authority that the transfer was made in good faith and for adequate consideration
under an irrevokable instrument. The learned Judge was also not satisfied that the petitioner had
his stud farm.

 19. For the reasons given above, while confirming the findings of the appellate authority
on other points, I set aside the finding on the question that Hari Raj Singh and Ravi Raj Singh are
not the co-tenure holders with the petitioner Chetanya Raj Singh. Consequently, the order of the
appellate authority is quashed and the case is sent back to it for deciding that point afresh in the
light of the observations made above. The findings on other points, which have been confirmed,
shall not be considered. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to his costs."

 c) Rajendra Singh (Supra):

 "1. A notice under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
was issued to Hanumant Singh. In the objection filed by him it was asserted that the entire land
recorded as his holding was ancestral Sir and Khudkasht before the abolition of Zamindari and
that his sons Rajendra Singh and Lallu Raja had a share in it by birth as they were born prior to
the date of vesting. The objection was overruled by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal
preferred by the tenure-holder also proved infructuous. Rajendra Singh and Lallu Raja, the sons of
the tenure-holder, filed this petition challenging the legality of the orders of the ceiling authorities.
In the petition Hanumant Singh was impleaded as a respondent. An application has been moved
praying that respondent no. 4 be transposed from the array of respondents to the array of the
petitioners. I have allowed that application today. 2. The only question involved in the petition is
whether land recorded in the name of Hanumant Singh could be treated as his exclusive holding.
There is no dispute that the land was ancestral Sir and Khudkasht. There appears to be further no
dispute that Rajendra Singh and Lallu Raja were born prior to the date of vesting. On these
admitted facts the legal position is clear that Rajendra Singh and Lallu Raja had an interest in the
property and that it was not the exclusive property of Hanumant Singh. On the abolition of
Zamindari the land held by the aforesaid persons as their Sir and Khudkasht became their
Bhumidhari property in the same share in which they hold the land as their Sir and Khudkasht. The
fact that in revenue papers only the name of the father was mutated would not result in depriving
1498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the sons of their interest in the property. By mere entry of his name in the revenue records
Hanumant Singh did not acquire exclusive Bhumidhari rights over the entire property to the
exclusion of the rights of his sons. Under section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act Bhumidhari rights were acquired by all the intermediaries who held that land as their
Sir and Khudkasht. Since there was no conflict of interest between the father and the sons, it has to
be presumed that the name of the father was recorded in the revenue papers in a representative
capacity. The view taken by the ceiling authorities that since Bhumidhari right was a fresh right
conferred under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the fact that the property was
ancestral Sir and Khudkasht, and the sons had an interest in it prior to the abolition of Zamindari
was not of any significance, is wholly erroneous, Bhumidhari rights under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act was acquired by all the three persons who held the land
exclusively in his own right."

 d) Gaya Prasad Vs. Prescribed Authority (Supra):

 " 1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960. The facts, in brief are thus. The petitioner was issued notice under
Section 10(2) of the Act and objections were filed. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority,
a true copy of whose order dated 30th June, 1976 is Annexure I to the petition. Thereafter an
appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same was decided by the Civil Judge, Jalaun Camp at
Orai and a certified copy of the judgment has been annexed and marked as Annexure 2. Now the
petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard the learned
counsel Sri Rajesh Ji Verma for the petitioner and in opposition, the Standing counsel has made
submissions. Only one point has been pressed before me and that relates to Khata No. 12 in village
Churkhi. The said land was claimed to be ancestral Sir and Khud Kasht and it was also contended
that the three sons of the petitioner were in existence on the date of vesting and as such the
petitioner and his three sons had 1/4th share each in the land of the said Khata. The said
contention was not accepted by the authorities below and in my opinion on an inadequate ground.
It seems that the petitioner had executed gift deed in favour of his sons and subsequently he also
executed a sale deed on 6-9-1971. The recital in these documents was that the petitioner was the
sole and exclusive owner of the properties. In my opinion merely because of these recitals the real
nature of the land could not be changed. The appellate Court has itself observed that the extract of
Khatauni for 1334 Fasli established that the land was recorded as Sir and Khudkasht. It has to be
seen that the recording in the name of the petitioner in that Fasli year will not prove that the land
was ancestral in his hands. It had to be further found that the land of the said Khata had come in
the hands of the petitioner from his ancestors or that it was otherwise proved to be joint family
property in which the sons acquired rights by their births."

 e) Vishwa Nath Singh (Supra):

 "11. In my opinion the Prescribed Authority has misappreciated the contentions raised on
behalf of the petitioner tenure-holder. The relevant thing to be determined in the case is as to
whether the plots claimed by the petitioner was coming down in his family from the time of his
ancestor and whether the petitioner's son Madan Gopal was born before 1st July, 1952. If the
aforesaid two questions are answered in the affirmative the petitioner's son Madan Gopal would
4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1499
get a right in Sir or Khudkasht land by virtue of his birth in the family. It is immaterial whether his
name was entered over the disputed plot or not, or he was not in actual possession over his share
in the plots. Even if the petitioner was in possession over the ancestral property, the right of the son
Madan Gopal would not extinguish in the disputed plots if the disputed plots were coming down in
the family from the time of grand-father or great grand-father or even from before them. It is true
that the devolution would be governed by the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act after the enforcement of Act I of 1951, but on 30th June, 1952 the persons who could
in law be sirholder or khudkasht holder would not lose their rights due to enforcement of Act I of
1951. The Prescribed Authority appears to have failed to examine the claim of the petitioner from
this angle. The appellate authority has not dealt with this aspect of the matter. Since the judgments
of the ceiling authorities are patently erroneous on the question of the claim put forward by the
petitioner that his plots were unirrigated, I think that the appellate authority should also examine
the claim of the petitioner that his son Madan Gopal has share in the plots indicated by him (the
petitioner) as ancestral property."

 f) Chhattar Singh and others (Supra):

 "It is note-worthy that the appellate authority has accepted that Pratap Singh was born
before the date of vesting, i.e. 1st July, 1952 and that the property in the hands of the present
petitioner. Chhattar Singh was coming down from the time of Nathuram. In such circumstances, it
is evident that Pratap Singh being grandson of Nathuram, father of the present petitioner no. 1
would get right in the property by birth. Whether the property would be exclusive property of
Chhattar Singh or not, it would be a pure question of law in the circumstances of the present case.
Even if the Present petitioner no. 1 makes contrary admission in the alleged gift deeds that the
property exclusively belongs to him, but in law if it could not belong to him, as such the petitioner
could be held as an exclusive owner, I think that the appellate authority has misappreciated the
circumstances in the present case. Secondly even if the possession of the present petitioner
Chhattar Singh is treated to be exclusive possession on his own behalf excluding Pratap Singh, his
son, the present petitioner no. 1 would not mature right to the land on the relevant date because for
perfecting title by adverse possession ousting the other co-sharer he would need 12 years
possession. In the present case the gift-deed is of the year 1967 and the relevant date for the
purpose of determining the ceiling area of the petitioners would be 8th June, 1973 according to the
provisions of the aforesaid Ceiling Act. In this view of the matter the right of the son of the
petitioner no. 1, namely, Pratap Singh had not extinguished in the area which is under the
provisions of law. It appears that the appellate authority has misdirected itself in holding that the
right of Pratap Singh had come to an end in the area which he could otherwise hold being a cosharer in family of Nathu Ram, father of present petitioner no. 1."

 g) Sheela Devi and others Vs. Lal Chand and Another (Supra):

 "16. Although in 1927, Babu Ram had no son and the property at his hands became a
separate property. But, in view of the well-settled principles of Hindu law, as soon as a son was
born to him the concept of the property being a coparcenary property in terms of the Mitakshara
school of Hindu law revived. The law in this behalf has succinctly been stated in Mayne's Hindu
Law & Usage, 14th Edn., at pp. 627-28 and 641, in the following terms:
1500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "Where ancestral property has been divided between several joint owners, there can be
no doubt that if any of them have male issue living at the time of the partition, the share which falls
to him will continue to be ancestral property in his hands, as regards his male issue, for their rights
had already attached upon it, and the partition only cuts off the claims of the dividing members.
The father and his male issue still remain joint. The same rule would apply even where the
partition had been made before the birth of male issue or before a son is adopted, for the share
which is taken at a partition, by one of the coparceners is taken by him as representing his branch.
It was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that where a father divided the family property
between him and his sons, the share obtained by him was his self-acquired property which he could
bequeath to his wife"

 *

 Coparceners may hold property separately.?An examination into the property of the joint
family would not be complete without pointing out what property may be held by the individual
members as their separate property. All property which is not held in coparcenary is separate
property and Hindu law recognises separate property of individual members of a coparcenary as
well as of separated members. (1) Property which comes to a man as obstructed heritage
(sapratibandhadaya) is his separate property. It is not self-acquired property within the meaning of
Hindu law, though in their incidents, there may be no difference between the two species."

 (See also Muttayan Chettiar v. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar [(1881-82) 9 IA 128 :
ILR (1883) 6 Mad 1 (PC)] .)"

 Judgments relied upon by learned Additional CSC:

 a) Shyamvir Singh (Supra):

 "4. The second submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's land
of village Rajpur was unirrigated. It may be pointed out that the Additional Civil Judge has held
that the petitioner did not file the copies of the Khasra for the relevant years and as such he had
failed to substantiate the plea raised by him. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner
before the Additional Civil Judge that it was not the petitioner's duty to file the necessary copies of
the Khasra but it was the duty of the State Government to have filed these copies was repelled by
the Additional Civil Judge on the ground that when the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act along
with the statement prepared under sub-section (1) thereof was sent to the petitioner requiring him
to show cause as to why the same should not be taken as correct it was the duty of the petitioner to
point out such errors which according to him found place in the statement and to prove his case by
producing evidence including copies of the Khasra for the relevant years. The same plea was
raised by counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition also, viz., that it was the duty not
of the petitioner but of the State Government to produce the copies of the Khasra for the relevant
years to enable the Prescribed Authority to record a finding whether the petitioner's land was
irrigated or not within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Act. According to counsel Section 4-A cast
a duty on the Prescribed Authority to look into these Khasras itself before determining the
petitioner's land to be surplus and record reasons as to how the petitioner's land of village Rajpur
4 All. Atul Behari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1501
was irrigated within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Act. In order to deal with this submission it
would be necessary to have in view the scheme of the Act. The preamble of the Act reads:"

 'Ceiling area' has been defined in Sec. 3(2) of the Act.