# Babu Khan v. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1091
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-29
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000168 of 1998
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babu-khan-v-addl-commissioner-admin-lko-ors-53906
- **Pages:** 25

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 82,535. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1091
records including the village map or by making local inspection, therefore, the impugned order is
not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

15. The appellate court has also erred in law in affirming the judgment of the prescribed
authority without examining the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

16. Submission advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the burden lies
upon the appellant to produce the relevant khasras is not correct. In fact, the burden lies on the
State to produce the relevant khasras of the aforesaid years, therefore, the argument advanced is not
admissible in law. In regard to the married daughter, the controversy in regard to that shall again be
decided by the authority concerned.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 31.12.1999, passed by the
prescribed authority and 7.11.2002, passed by the appellate court are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. However, the matter is remanded to the prescribed authority to consider the grievance of
the petitioner afresh and pass order in accordance with law after affording fullest opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned within six months.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1091
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000168 of 1998

Babu Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether holding of the petitioner has wrongly been shown and he has lesser holding?
(b) Whether the burden of proof, which squarely lies upon the State to prove land is surplus through cogent
evidence, was duly discharged?
(c) Whether the impugned orders suffer from internal contradictions and lack of proper reasoning, thereby
violating the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication?
(d) Whether authorities conducted a fair, objective, and comprehensive enquiry in the present proceedings?

Headnotes
A. Land Law - Ceiling Act: Section 10(2); U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960:
Section 29. The proceedings initiated u/s 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
involved the holdings of the deceased petitioner in Village Barethi and Village Rasoolpur. On 18.06.1996, the
petitioner filed objections asserting that the CLH Form 3 statement was prepared with "vengeance" by the
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lekhpal. The petitioner maintained that his actual holdings totaled only 21.11 Acres, much of which was unirrigated, single-crop land. (Para 39)

Determination of surplus land - (a) Although "submerged land" is not expressly defined under
the Ceiling Act, consistent judicial pronouncements have held that submerged land is outside the
purview of ceiling proceedings and cannot be included in the holding of a tenure holder. (Para 25)

The authorities below failed to exclude such submerged land while determining surplus area, despite settled
legal position. 10 Acres of the holding lay along the banks of the River Gomti and remained submerged/floodaffected. Under the Act, such land does not qualify for inclusion in the ceiling limit, potentially reducing the
petitioner's relevant holding to 11.11 Acres (equivalent to roughly 7.5 irrigated acres). (Para 40)

(b) Major sons do not fall within the definition of "family" u/s 2(7) of the Ceiling Act. Despite
specific objections raised by the deceased petitioner, the authorities illegally clubbed the land independently
held by major sons (Taiyab, Tauhid, and Vaheed) with that of the petitioner. Furthermore, 3.13 acres had
been transferred to Akbari Begam in 1989, who was in physical possession and recorded as Bhumidhar. (Para
26, 40)

The inclusion of submerged land and independent holdings of major sons in the petitioner's holding, in
disregard of statutory provisions and binding precedents, renders the determination of surplus land wholly
unsustainable. (Para 47)

B. Burden of proof - The burden of proof, which squarely lies upon the State to prove land is
surplus through cogent evidence, was illegally shifted onto the tenure holder. Mere reliance
upon revenue entries, statements of subordinate officials, or assumptions regarding possession
cannot substitute for legally admissible and cogent evidence. (Para 43)

Once a notice u/s 10(2) is served upon the tenure-holder he has to show cause and while
showing cause if the tenure-holder establishes by prima facie evidence by filing documents or by
giving evidence that the land was being held by other persons in their own capacity, the burden
shifts upon the State to establish the fact that the land is being held by the tenure-holder
ostensibly in the name of others. Merely because in the notice the State has clubbed the land belonging
to others under the pretext that it is being held ostensibly in the name of sons or any other person, the
burden cannot be said to have been discharged. (Para 38)

The Prescribed Authority (on 29.05.1997) declared 15.65 Acres as surplus, deciding all issues against the
petitioner by claiming "no evidence was led," despite witnesses being produced. (Para 41)

C. The impugned orders also suffer from internal contradictions and lack of proper reasoning,
thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication. It is manifest that the
proceedings initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the consequential
orders passed by the authorities below suffer from patent illegality, arbitrariness and non-application of mind.
(Para 44, 47)

The authorities ignored the finality attained by the consolidation proceedings recognizing the petitioner's
rights and erred in applying an incorrect cut-off date, contrary to the statutory provisions and settled judicial
precedents. (Para 46, 23, 32, 35)

Upon appeal, the Appellate Authority (Opposite Party No. 1) acknowledged that findings regarding Gata Nos.
62, 97, 125, and 250 were self-contradictory, initially noting they lacked irrigation sources but ultimately
declaring them irrigated. Despite these discrepancies, the appeal was dismissed resulting in a limited and self
contradictory remand. The authorities failed to consider the testimony of State witnesses who admitted that
parts of the land were Aabadi (settled) and Graveyards, which are legally exempt from surplus calculations.
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1093
The classification of land as "irrigated" was done without perusing the Khasra entries of 1378-1380 Fasli or
verifying the actual source of irrigation at the spot. The Appellate Authority issued "mutually
destructive findings"-admitting the Prescribed Authority's order was baseless while
simultaneously upholding the bulk of its conclusions. (Para 41, 42, 48)

D. The present proceedings being statutory and quasi-judicial in nature, cast an affirmative duty
upon the authorities to conduct a fair, objective, and comprehensive enquiry. The findings recorded
by the authorities below are further vitiated by their failure to conduct spot inspection and proper enquiry,
despite specific disputes regarding submergence, irrigation facilities, and cultivability of the land. The
classification of land as irrigated and cultivable has been made mechanically, without due verification from
revenue records and without physical inspection, resulting in arbitrary and unsustainable conclusions. (Para
49, 50)

The impugned orders dated 29.05.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate order dated
18.07.1998 are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record, non-consideration of relevant material,
misapplication of law, and procedural irregularities. Therefore, are legally unsustainable and hereby quashed.
The declaration of surplus land against the deceased petitioner stands set aside. The respondents are directed
to treat the petitioner's holding in accordance with law and in consonance with the findings recorded herein.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Mahadeo Vs. Civil Judge, Basti (Para 25)
2. Smt. Rani Prem Kunwar Vs. D.J., Bareilly (Para 25)
3. Tej Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. (Para 25)
4. Vibhuti Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. (Para 25)
5. Shishu Pal Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, 2008 (105) RD 548 (Para 26)
6. State of U.P. Vs. Commissioner Kumaon Division (Uttarakhand), 2006 (100) RD 827 (Para 30)
7. State of U.P. Vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut Div. Meerut, 2006 (100) RD 491 (Para 30)
8. Noorullah Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2007 (102) RD 763 (Para 30)
9. Mahadeo Vs. Civil Judge, Basti (Allahabad), 1978 RD 309 (Para 30)
10. Rani Prem Kunwar vs. The District Judge, Bareilly (Allhabad), 1978 (4) ALR 508 (Para 30)
11. Tej Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 (90) RD 424 (Para 30)
12. Vibhuti Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (105) RD 185 (Para 30)
13. Shishu Pal Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, 2008 (105) RD 548 (Para 30)
14. Kishundeo Rout and others Vs. Govind Rao and Others, SLP (Civil) No.22070 of 2025 (Diary No.30361),
decided on 08.08.2025 (Para 37)
15. Bechan Pandey and others Vs. Dulhin Janki Devi and others, (1976) 2 SCC 286 (Para 37)
16. T.H. Musthaffa Vs. M.P. Varghese and others, (1999) 8 SCC 692 (Para 37)
17. Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi, (2011) 11 SCC 786 (Para 37)

List of Acts
 U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; Ceiling Act.

List of Keywords
 holding, declaration, surplus, burden of proof, revenue, finality, self, contradictory, flood, affected,
submerged, family, independent.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): M.A. Siddiqui, Bhanu Bajpai
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Bhanu Bajpai, Mohd Qaseem
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aftab Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned
Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.1998
passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 29.05.1997 passed by respondent No.2 and notice viz.
From-III part C contained as annexures 1 to 3 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a notice under Section 10(2) / CLH Form 3-C was issued
to the deceased petitioner on 29.02.1996 mentioning therein 15.65 Acres of irrigated land as ceiling
surplus. In the said notice the holdings of the deceased petitioner of Village Barethi, Tahsil Gola,
District Kheri was mentioned.

4. On 18.06.1996 objection was filed by the deceased petitioner asserting therein that even the
statement as prepared under CLH Form 3 has been issued with vengeance of the Lekhpal and
neither the same nor proper. Deceased is correct petitioner apart from his holdings of Village
Barethi also gave details of his holdings in Village Rasoolpur and also specifically asserted that in
the notice all the lands with area, which has been shown to be the holding of the deceased
petitioner, has also been fraudulently shown and the co-owners of the Khatas have deliberately not
been mentioned and if entire land is taken together, the total holding of the deceased petitioner is
21.11 Acres. It was also asserted in the objection that holdings of the deceased petitioner unirrigated and single crop land having no source of irrigation.

5. It was also taken as a ground in the objection that 10 Acres land of the deceased petitioner
lies along the banks of the river Gomti on both sides and remain submerged and as such, 10 Acres
land even does not fall within the definition of land and the total holding of the deceased petitioner
as such remains 11.11 Acres, which in irrigated means comes to 7.5 Acres only.

6. It was also stated in the objection that by the son of deceased petitioner 3.13 Acres land was
transferred to the opposite party no.6 - now represented by 6/1, in the year 1989 and on 25.05.1990
her name was duly mutated and since then she is in actual physical possession at the spot as well as
recorded as Bhumidhar and the deceased petitioner has no concern with the said land.

7. As Apart from it, the inclusion of the holding of the major sons of the deceased petitioner in
his holdings well as taking into consideration number of major sons and total number of family
members, the legal entitlement of the deceased petitioner to hold 15 Acres excess land was also
stated and on the basis of all these objections asserting notice having been issued by the Lekhpal
merely to harass the deceased petitioner and being baseless was requested cancelled/withdrawn.

8. Apart from deceased petitioner, his sons viz. opposite parties nos.4 & 5 as well as the
transferee of one son viz. the opposite party no.6 also appeared and filed their written objections.
(copy of objection is attached in annexure no.4 to the writ petition).
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1095

9. By the Prescribed Authority i.e. the opposite party no.2, after registering Ceiling Case
No.34/32 under Section 10(2) of Ceiling Act namely State Vs. Babu Khan and others" and taking
into consideration the objections so preferred, 6 issues were framed viz. -

(i)Whether in the statement, holdings of the objector has wrongly been shown and he has
lesser holding? If so, its effect.

(ii) Whether the holding is unirrigated under Section 4-A?

(iii) Number of children of objectors and area for which he is entitled?

(iv) Whether land transferred to Begum cannot be clubbed? Akbari

(v) Whether area of Gata No.97 of Khata No. 122 has been shown 4 Acres extra?

(vi) Relief to which entitled?

10. Before the opposite party no.2, by the State as well as deceased petitioner evidence was
lead and matter was heard. (statement of State witnesses are attached as annexure no.5 to 9 to the
writ petition)

11. On 29.05.1997 the judgment and order was passed by the opposite party no.3/Prescribed
Authority (copy of judgment and order dated 29.05.1997 is attached in annexure no.2 to the writ
petition) and 15.65 Acres land of the deceased petitioner was declared surplus. While deciding the
matter, issues no.1 to 3 were decided together and issues nos.4 & 5 were decided separately but all
the issues were decided against the deceased petitioner merely saying that no evidence has been
lead by the deceased petitioner.

12. Two separate appeals, one by deceased petitioner and other by the opposite parties no.4 &
5 were filed (copy of the memo of appeal are attached in annexure no.9 & 10 to the writ petition).
In the memo of appeal, notice being prepared as a result of enmity was again stated, as the Lekhpal
who prepared the notice was suspended because of the complaint of the deceased petitioner, the
clubbing of the land of major sons, 10 Acres of land remaining submerged in water and hence not
Land being not considered by the Prescribed Authority were taken as a ground.

It was also stated in the appeal that from the evidence led by the State no holding could be said
to be irrigated and was illegally and wrongly held to be irrigated which was also taken as a ground.
Apart from it, other grounds regarding number of family members, Non-extension of benefit of 3
major sons in the family, the wrong and illegal mention of the area, discarding of the statements
and pleas taken by the appellant and even non-consideration of the arguments and judgments relied
by the appellant as well as statement of witnesses produced by the State was also taken. Moreover
the land mentioned to be Aabadi and Graveyard in their statement by the witnesses of the State
itself having not been considered was also taken as a ground in the memo of appeal.
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. In the memo of appeal as preferred by the opposite party no.4 & 5 they being independent,
living separately, having land duly recorded in their name, being wrongly clubbed in the holding of
the deceased petitioner, was stated by them and both the appeals were registered as Appeal No.278
(96-97) and 285 (96-97).

7. 18.07.1998 : Judgment and order by the opposite party no.2 in the appeal connecting both the
appeals and deciding them together, was passed wherein giving reference to Rule 8 of U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules. 1961. Issuance of notice to the opposite parties no.3
to 6 and filing of objections by them was also mentioned.

14. The opposite party no.1 reproducing the averments made by the deceased petitioner and
other objectors, from para-7 onwards the observations and findings have been given, wherein firstly
the land submerged and affected by floods being not a land as well as another ground i.e. land
being not irrigated rather unirrigated as per Section 4-A was considered by the opposite party no.1.
With regard to "submerged land" it was recorded by the opposite party no.1 that no provision of the
Act could be shown by the counsel for the appellant wherein "submerged land is not land" is
provided. It was observed by the opposite party no.1 that under Section 3 land is not defined and
under sub-section (8) Grove land and under sub-section (4) Usar land, has been provided. In
Section 3 and 4 classification of irrigated and unirrigated land is there. Moreover there is no
evidence which land is flood affected/submerged. It was observed by the opposite party no.1 that
this objection is very vague and against the provisions of the Act and as such no issue was required
to be framed for it and it has righty not been framed.

15. The opposite party no.1 with regard to unirrigated land reference to Khasra of 1378 Fasli
and 1379 Fasli, being available with the record of lower court was given further mentioning Gata
No.23, 62, 97, 100, 101, 125 & 250. It was also mentioned in Village Barethi consolidation
operation have been held but no evidence for Village Rasoolpur has been given.

16. By the opposite party no.1 referring to Khasra No.1378 to 1380 Fasli pertaining to above
referred 7 gatas, it was mentioned that Wheat, Groundnut and Barley (गेह ाँ, मूंगिली एवं िौ) is sowed and
Gata No.23, 100 & 101 is recorded as Grove and Parti. The opposite party no.1 also mentioned that
in CLH-3 no gata of village Rasoolpur is mentioned and only land of village Barethi is mentioned
and it has been recorded erroneously but holding of Village Rasoolpur has not been included.

`11. It was also observed by the opposite party no.1 that in 1378, 1379 & 1380 Fasli
Khasra No.23, 62, 97, 100, 101 & 125 were shown and as per entries gata no.23 & 100 are Grove
and gata no.101 is Parti but wrongly all gatas have been shown as irrigated and finding of the
Prescribed Authority is wrong, arrived at without perusing the record.

17. The opposite party no.1 further observing that with regard to Gata No.62, 97, 125 & 250,
Well is mentioned, which is not a source of irrigation under Section 4-A and thereafter holding
Gata No.23 & 100 as Grove and Gata no.101 was held as unirrigated but going against the findings
and discussions contained in the earlier portion of its order barring at a self contradictory
conclusion Gata No.62, 97. 125 and 250 were held as irrigated by the opposite party no.1.
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1097

18. With regard to holdings of Village Barethi shown as irrigated, it has been recorded by the
opposite party no.1 that Khasra No.1378-1380 Fasli are not available but Village has gone under
consolidation as is apparent by CH 41. But no finding in this regard as per rule 3 of 1961 Rules has
been given by the court below i.e. Prescribed Authority whereas all the Gatas have been shown as
unirrigated and as such for the of Village Barethi, holding reconsideration by the Prescribed
Authority under Section 4-A read with rule 3 to be proper was concluded by the opposite party
no.1.

19. With regard to sons being major it was held by the opposite party no.1 that notice under
Section 10(2) was issued treating 08.06.1973 as cut off date and no evidence regarding number of
family members on 08.06.1973 being there, issue no.3 was held to be rightly decided.

20. With regard to the land transferred to opposite party no.6, the land transferred was held to
be part of holding of deceased petitioner by the opposite party no.1 but was ordered not to be
included in the land to be declared surplus. With regard to Village Rasoolpur, the opposite party
no.1 required the Prescribed Authority specifically mentioning holdings of Village Rasoolpur
dispute would be decided by the Prescribed Authority.

21. With all these observations and findings the appeal preferred by the deceased petitioner
was allowed whereas the appeal preferred by the sons, opposite party no.4 & 5 was dismissed but
in the operative portion it was mentioned that matter is remanded. To regard to Prescribed
Authority with irrigated/unirrigated land of Village Barethi further mentioning that no other issues
would be considered, whereas in the body of judgment on different aspects the observations given
requiring and findings were reconsideration of the matter as a whole.

22. On 06.11.1998 the instant writ petition was filed and on 07.11.1998 interim order of status
quo was ordered to be maintained during pendency of the writ petition which is continuing and no
proceeding in furtherance of remand order as passed by the opposite party no.1 have yet taken
place before the opposite party no.2.

23. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 29 of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the deceased petitioner had lawfully acquired
the land during consolidation proceedings by virtue of the order dated 20.03.1987 passed by the
Consolidation Officer in Case No. 910 under Section 9-A(2), recognizing the petitioner"s rights on
the basis of adverse possession. The said order attained finality and was never challenged.
Consequently, the cut-off date applicable in the case of the deceased petitioner could neither be
08.06.1973 nor 29.02.1996, but necessarily the date when consolidation proceedings became final,
i.e., 20.03.1987, any determination of surplus land by taking 08.06.1973 as the cut-off date is
legally untenable and contrary to settled law.

24. He further submitted that in proceedings under the Ceiling Act, the burden of proof
squarely lies upon the State. Unless such burden is discharged by cogent oral and documentary
evidence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the tenure holder. The Ceiling Act being a
confiscatory legislation mandates strict adherence to statutory provisions, principles of natural
justice, and procedural safeguards. The findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority are arbitrary,
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cursory, and unsupported by legally admissible evidence, rendering the impugned orders
unsustainable.

25. He next submitted that although "submerged land" is not expressly defined under the
Ceiling Act, consistent judicial pronouncements have held that submerged land is outside the
purview of ceiling proceedings and cannot be included in the holding of a tenure holder. The
authorities below failed to exclude such submerged land while determining surplus area, despite
settled legal position as laid down in the case of Mahadeo v. Civil Judge, Basti, Smt. Rani Prem
Kunwar v. D.J., Bareilly, Tej Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Vibhuti Kumar Bajpai v. State of
U.P.

26. He next submitted that it is well settled that major sons do not fall within the definition of
"family" under Section 2(7) of the Ceiling Act. Despite specific objections raised by the deceased
petitioner, the authorities illegally clubbed the land independently held by major sons with that of
the petitioner. Such clubbing is patently illegal and directly contrary to binding precedent,
including Shishu Pal Singh v. Prescribed Authority, reported in 2008 (105) RD 548.

27. He further submitted that the Ceiling Act, being confiscatory in nature, obligates the
authorities to consider each and every objection raised by the tenure holder and to pass a reasoned
and speaking order. In the present case, vital issues such as actual landholding, nature of land
(irrigated or unirrigated), independent holdings of major sons, and submerged land were neither
properly examined nor adjudicated. The impugned orders thus suffer from apparent illegality and
non-application of mind.

28. He submitted that even the statements of witnesses produced by the State substantiate the
case of the deceased petitioner regarding exclusive ownership, co-tenure holdings, family
composition, lack of irrigation sources and submerged nature of the land. Despite such material
being on record, the Prescribed Authority failed to consider the same, rendering the order dated
29.05.1997 wholly unsustainable.

29. He lastly submitted that while passing the impugned appellate order, opposite party no.1
itself acknowledged the incorrectness and absurdity of the findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority and observed the necessity of reconsideration on several aspects. However, despite such
observations, the appeal was dismissed and the matter was remanded in a limited manner, resulting
in self-contradictory and mutually destructive findings, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment in
its entirety.

30. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

a) State of U.P. Vs. Commissioner Kumaon Division (Uttarakhand); 2006 (100) RD
827.

b) State of U.P. vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut Div. Meerut; 2006 (100) RD
491.
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1099

c) Noorullah Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut; 2007 (102) RD
763.

d) Mahadeo Vs. Civil Judge, Basti (Allahabad); 1978 RD 309.

e) Rani Prem Kunwar vs. The District Judge, Bareilly (Allhabad); 1978 (4) ALR
508.

f) Tej Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 1999 (90) RD 424.

g) Vibhuti Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P.; 2008 (105) RD 185.

31. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed
the numbers of gatas allegedly acquired during consolidation proceedings either in the objections
dated 18.06.1996 (Annexure-4) or in the memo of appeal (Annexure-9). No issue was framed nor
any evidence adduced on this aspect before the Prescribed Authority. It is settled law that a case
cannot be decided on grounds beyond pleadings. Any argument raised for the first time before this
Hon"ble Court is not sustainable.

32. His next submission is that Form-3 was issued after due scrutiny of revenue records. If
exemption was claimed on the basis of major sons or number of family members, the burden
squarely lay upon the tenure-holder. The petitioner himself stated in para-4 of objections dated
18.06.1996 that Taiyab Khan, Tauhid Khan and Vaheed were aged 31, 26 and 24 years respectively
on 18.06.1996, meaning thereby that all were minors on the cut-off date i.e. 08.06.1973.
Consequently, no additional benefit under the Act was admissible. The petitioner also failed to
produce any evidence to prove the total number of family members. These findings have been
rightly affirmed by the appellate court.

33. He further submitted that though the petitioner vaguely alleged existence of 10 acres of
submerged land, he failed to mention specific Gata numbers or to produce any documentary
evidence. In absence of specific pleadings and proof, no issue could have been framed. The
petitioner never challenged the framing of issues before the competent forum. The appellate court
examined this plea and rejected it by a reasoned order.

34. His next submission is that the appellate court made an elaborate discussion on pages
18"19 of its judgment and, on the basis of Khasra entries of 1378"1380 Fasli, correctly held Gata
Nos. 23, 62, 97, 100, 101, 125 and 250 as irrigated land and Gata Nos. 23 & 100 as grove land,
while Gata No. 101 was declared unirrigated land of village Rasoolpur. Since Khasra entries of
village Barethi were not filed, the limited issue of irrigated/unirrigated land of Barethi was rightly
remanded under Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

35. His further submission is that Tauhid Khan and Taiyab Khan did not challenge the
appellate order dated 29.05.1997 by filing any writ petition. Hence, the findings recorded therein
attained finality against them. The petitioner cannot now seek exclusion of their land indirectly.
Further, the sale deeds executed in favour of Akbari Begam in the year 1989, after the cut-off date,
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were duly protected by the appellate court, and Gata Nos. 125 and 128 were rightly excluded from
surplus declaration.

36. His last submission is that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have
recorded concurrent findings on all material issues except a limited remand on irrigated/unirrigated
land of village Barethi. The petitioner has unnecessarily lingered the matter for over 26 years. The
writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches, and absence of
any perversity or illegality. He also submitted that the present writ petition be dismissed with costs,
as the impugned orders are just, legal, and based on proper appreciation of facts and law.

37. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

a) Kishundeo Rout and others Vs. Govind Rao and Others; Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.22070 of 2025 (Diary No.30361) decided on 08.08.2025.

b) Bechan Pandey and others Vs. Dulhin Janki Devi and others; (1976) 2 SCC 286.

c) T.H. Musthaffa Vs. M.P. Varghese and others; (1999) 8 SCC 692.
d) Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P. Joshi; (2011) 11 SCC 786.

37. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.

38. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the parties are being quoted below:

Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners:

a) State of U.P. Vs. Commissioner Kumaon Division (Uttarakhand) (Supra):

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently submitted that in the
present case, the land was purchased and held by major sons of tenure-holder, hence that cannot
be declared surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961. In support
of his contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division Bench
Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of "Mohammad Abbas v. State of U.P., [1979
(5) ALR 206.] wherein it has been held that "If land is held by the major sons of the tenure-holder,
it is neither to be included in the holding of the tenure-holder nor can it be included in the land
sought to be declared surplus." In para No. 4 it has been observed that "Since land held by the
major sons of the tenure-holder was not land which would have been declared surplus under the
Act, the transfer of that land could not be ignored in determining the ceiling area applicable to the
tenure-holder although the land was transferred after the 24th day of January 1971. I have gone
through the case-law and I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court.
As stated earlier, the fact that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were major at the time of purchase of
land by them.

b) State of U.P. vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut Div. Meerut (Supra):
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1101

6. I have heard Standing Counsel for the petitioner. No one has put up appear ance on
behalf of the Respondent. Sri R.N. Singh has made submissions on his behalf as a friend of the
Court. Following points arise for determination:

(i) What is the relevant date for determining the surplus land in proceedings under
section 29/30 of the Act? Is it the date of commencement of the amending Act. (i.e. 8.6.1973).

(ii) In case the relevant date for proceeding under section 29/30 of the Act is different
then the date of enforcement of the amending Act (8.6.1973), then whether of the family members
are to be determined with reference to 8.6.1973 or to the relevant date for the proceeding under
section 29/30 of the Act.

POINT No. 1: THE DATE OF ACQUIRING LAND IS THE RELEVANT DATE

7. Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the amended Act [(section 5(1)] provides that from the
date of commencement of the amending Act (i.e. 8.6.1973) no tenure holder will be entitled to hold
land in ex cess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The other sub-sections of section 5 provide the
ceiling area applicable under the Act. Sub-section (7) of section 3 defines the word "family". It
means the tenure holder his wife or husband as the case may be, minor sons and minor unmarried
daughters. Sub section (3) of section 5 provides the ceiling limit of 7.30 hectares in case of a tenure
holder who has a family of not more than 5 members. In case the family of a tenure-holder consist
of more than 5 members then he is entitled to 2 additional hectares of land for each additional
member, subject to maximum of 6 hectares of additional land.

8. Section 29 of the Act provides for the subsequent declaration of further land as surplus
land. It provides that ceiling area is liable to be re-determined in case any tenure holder comes to
hold any land in anyone of the following contingencies:

(i) under the decree or order of any Court,

(ii) as a result of succession,

(iii) by transfer,

(iv) by prescription in consequence of adverse possession,

(v) any unirrigated land becoming irrigated land as a result of irrigation from the State
irrigation Work,

(vi) any grove land loosing its character as grove land, and

(vii) any land exempted under the Act ceasing to fail under any of the categories
exempted.
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Section 30 of the Act provides determination of surplus land regarding fu ture
acquisition. It provides that where any land is liable to be treated as surplus land under section 29
of the Act, then the tenure holder is required to submit a statement to the Prescribed Authority in
the manner provided under section 9 of the Act. It further provides that in case he fails to submit
the same, the Prescribed Authority is to proceed for re-determination of land as provided under
section 10 of the Act. The provisions of the Act in respect of declaration, acquisition, disposal and
settlement of surplus land are to be applied as far as applicable in determination of surplus land in
these proceedings.

10. In the earlier ceiling proceeding the ceiling area in the hands of the Respondent was
determined with reference to 8th June, 1973. Smt. Lalli widow of Raghubir Singh died on 5th
February, 1981 and her property devolved on the Respondent. The order of the Prescribed
Authority records that the Respondent did not dispute these facts. As the Respondent acquired the
land through succession, section 29 of the Act became applicable and the surplus land in the hands
of the Respondent is liable to be redetermined.

11. Sections 29 and 30 provide for redetermination of ceiling area on happening of
certain events in case they are applicable then it is logical that the ceiling area should be
determined with reference to the date on which those events happened. The date"on which events
contemplated under section 29 occurred"is the relevant date in proceeding under section 29 of the
Act. The date of commencement of the amending Act (i.e. 8.6.1973) is not relevant for proceeding
under section 29/30 of the Act.

12. I am not alone in taking this view. A Single Judge in Swamidin v. State of U.P. [1996
(87) RD 320.] (The Swamidin case) has held as follows:

The language of said section (section 29) is very clear which permits redetermination
with reference to a date after enforcement of amending Act. This rules out the possibility of ceiling
area being determined with reference to the date of enforcement of amending Act. The only date
which can be taken into consideration for redetermining the ceiling area under section 29(b) can
be the date on which an unirrigated land becomes irrigated as a result of irrigation from State
Irrigation Work and it is on fulfilment of this condition alone that the jurisdiction gets conferred on
the authority concerned to redetermine the ceiling area. It is a condition precedent for invoking the
power for redetermination if petitioner holds land beyond ceiling limit.

13. A Division Bench in Satish Chandra Mathur v. State of U.P. [1985 (2) U.P.C. & RCR
1287.] (The Satish Chandra case) has held as follows:

"For the purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder on the enforcement of
U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973, 8.6.1973 is relevant date with reference to which it has to be determined.
But as regards the land acquired or came to be held by a tenure holder after 8.6.1973, the relevant
date with reference to which the ceiling area has to be determined is the date on which he acquired
the land or came to hold it."
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1103

21.(b) The date-on which events contemplated under Section 29 occurred is the relevant
date in proceedings under Section 29 of the Act.

c) Noorullah Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut (Supra):

7. After the conclusion of previous ceiling proceedings in favour of the petitioner, the
petitioner was at complete liberty to transfer the land. If due to subsequent development of
unirrigated land becoming irrigated or acquisition of some land by a person fresh ceiling
proceedings are initiated under section 29/30 of the Ceiling Act then 24.1.1971 or 8.6.1973 cannot
be taken as cut off dates. In that eventuality the cut off date will be the date on which subsequent
acquisition takes place or unirrigated land becomes irrigated. Suppose on 8.6.1973 a person has
got no surplus land. Thereafter in the year 1980 he purchases some land and the land already held
by him and the land purchased by him clubbed together are more than the ceiling limit then ceiling
proceedings may be initiated. However in that eventuality the cut off date would be the date on
which he acquired fresh land. The number of family members the minority/majority of sons will
also have to be seen on the date on which he purchased fresh land. Similarly if before purchasing
the fresh land the purchaser had transferred some of his land then the said transfer will also have
to be honoured and taken as correct. It cannot be said that as the said transfer is after 8.6.1973
hence it is void.

d) Mahadeo Vs. Civil Judge, Basti (Allahabad) (Supra):

It appears that the petitioner filed an application for the setting aside of that order on the
ground that the same was passed ex parte and prayed for a re hearing of the appeal. That
application was rejected by an order dated 13-3-1976. The petitioner then filed the instant writ
petition challenging the orders of the two authorities below, inter alia, on the ground that the land
forming part of the river bed of river Ghagra could not be included in the holding of the petitioner
and was exempt from the operation of the Ceiling Act. He further contended that the two
authorities below had erroneously held that no part of the petitioner's holding was uninigated land
and no part of it was covered by grove. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.