# Dasoda Singh v. Ayukt Lucknow Division, Lko

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1576
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-08
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3000076 of 2008
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dasoda-singh-v-ayukt-lucknow-division-lko-51750
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On
Land Holdings Act,1972 - Section 10(2) -
4.50 acre un-irrigated land of the petitioners'
father was declared to be surplus -appealallowed - order was modified by reducing the
surplus
land
area
to
4.10
acres
-after
Petitioner's father died - a notice u/s10(2) of the
Ceiling Act was issued to the petitioners -filed
their objections and the proceedings were
closed -holding the same to be hit by the
principles of res-judicata -State filed an appeal -
allowed and the matter was remanded but even
after remand-the Prescribed Authority closed
the proceedings -another notice u/s 10(2) of the
Ceiling Act-Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act - for a
land to be determined as an irrigated land- it is
necessary that it should have been irrigated in
the years 1378 Fasli, 1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli-
no such material available on record -Section
29(b) of the Ceiling Act -after the date of
enforcement of Act, 1972 -any un-irrigated land
becomes irrigated as a result of "irrigation from
the State irrigation work"- the Ceiling area shall
be liable to be re-determined-no occasion for
issuance of a fresh notice -not permissible in
law.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

## Text

1576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acting in collusion with each other. The
land was not in physical possession of the
petitioner and it was not available to be
allotted to any other person. In these
circumstances, the Appellate Court has not
committed any illegality in not declaring
the land which the petitioner and the
Sukhpal Vidyalay claimed to have been
transferred to the Vidyalay and in declaring
other land held by the petitioner to be
surplus.

29. No other point was pressed
before me.

30. In view of the foregoing
discussion, I find no illegality in the
impugned orders. The Writ Petition is
without any force and the same is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 3000076 of 2008

Dasoda Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Ayukt Lucknow Division, Lko.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
V.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On
Land Holdings Act,1972 - Section 10(2) -
4.50 acre un-irrigated land of the petitioners'
father was declared to be surplus -appealallowed - order was modified by reducing the
surplus
land
area
to
4.10
acres
-after
Petitioner's father died - a notice u/s10(2) of the
Ceiling Act was issued to the petitioners -filed
their objections and the proceedings were
closed -holding the same to be hit by the
principles of res-judicata -State filed an appeal -
allowed and the matter was remanded but even
after remand-the Prescribed Authority closed
the proceedings -another notice u/s 10(2) of the
Ceiling Act-Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act - for a
land to be determined as an irrigated land- it is
necessary that it should have been irrigated in
the years 1378 Fasli, 1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli-
no such material available on record -Section
29(b) of the Ceiling Act -after the date of
enforcement of Act, 1972 -any un-irrigated land
becomes irrigated as a result of "irrigation from
the State irrigation work"- the Ceiling area shall
be liable to be re-determined-no occasion for
issuance of a fresh notice -not permissible in
law.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Pandey, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
S.P. Maurya, the learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have
challenged the validity of an order dated
27.02.2007 passed by the Prescribed
Authority Ceiling Act/Additional Collector,
Kheri in Case No. 37/2004-05 under
Section 10(2) Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment)
Act, 1972, whereby 5.38 hectares land of
the
petitioners
situated
in
Village
Sumerpur, Pargana and Tehsil Palia,
District Lakhimpur Kheri was declared
surplus
and
proceedings
for
taking
possession of that land were initiated. The
petitioners have also challenged the validity
of an order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow dismissing Appeal No. 102/2006-
4 All. Dasoda Singh Vs. Ayukt Lucknow Division, Lko.
1577
07 under Section 13(2) of the U.P.
Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as "Ceiling
Act") field against the aforesaid order dated
27.02.2007.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the
case are that 4.50 acre un-irrigated land of
the petitioners' father Gargaj Singh was
declared to be surplus by means of an order
dated 30.06.1979 passed by the Prescribed
Authority in Case No. 73/1959 under
Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. The
petitioners' father had filed an appeal
against the aforesaid order, which was
allowed by the learned District Judge by
means of an order dated 16.01.1980 and the
order was modified by reducing the surplus
land area to 4.10 acres.

4. After Gargaj Singh died on
27.02.1990, a notice under Section 10(2) of
the Ceiling Act was issued to the petitioners
on 05.04.1995. The petitioners filed their
objections and the proceedings were closed
by means of an order dated 22.02.1996
passed by the Prescribed Authority, holding
the same to be hit by the principles of resjudicata.

5. The State filed an appeal against
the order dated 22.02.1996, which was
allowed and the matter was remanded but
even after remand, the Prescribed Authority
closed the proceedings by means of an
order dated 15.06.2001.

6. On 25.05.2005, another notice
under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was
issued against the petitioners.

7. The petitioners filed their
objections and the Prescribed Authority
framed issues, including an issue regarding
the effect of previous proceedings under
Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act having
attained finality. The Prescribed Authority
held that the first notice issued to the father
of the petitioners mentioned merely 7.46
hectares acres land to be irrigated and the
rest land was mentioned to be un-irrigated
whereas from the statements of the Lekhpal
and Assistant Registrar, Kanungo recorded
in the proceedings instituted on the basis of
third notice, it appeared that the entire land
was
irrigated.
While
deciding
the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the
second notice, the Prescribed Authority had
summarily held that the land was unirrigated and this finding was erroneous.

8. Assailing the aforesaid finding of
the Prescribed Authority, the learned counsel
for the petitioners has submitted that the
statement
of
Lekhpal
and Assistance
Registrar, Kanungo merely mention that the
land is irrigated in present time but it does
not make a mention as to when was the land
irrigated for the first time.

9. Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition
Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960,
contains
provisions
regarding
determination of irrigated land and it
provides that "the Prescribed Authority
shall examine the relevant Khasras for the
years
1378
Fasli,
1979 Fasli and
1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such
other records as it may consider necessary,
and may also make local inspection where
it considers necessary and thereupon if the
prescribed authority is of opinion that
irrigation facility was available for any
land in respect of any crop in any one of the
aforesaid years while by any canal, any lift
irrigation cannal or in any State tube-well
or a private irrigation work."

10. A bare perusal of Section 4-A
of the Ceiling Act indicates that for a land
1578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be determined as an irrigated land, it is
necessary that it should have been
irrigated
in
the
years
1378
Fasli,
1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli. There is no
such material available on record as may
establish that the land in question was an
irrigated land in the aforesaid years.

11. Although, Section 29(b) of
the Ceiling Act mentions that after the
date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1972 any un-irrigated
land becomes irrigated as a result of
"irrigation from the State irrigation
work", the Ceiling area shall be liable to
be re-determined, it is not the State's case
that the petitioners' un-irrigated land has
become irrigated land as a result of
irrigation from a State irrigation work.

12. Therefore, there was no
occasion for issuance of a fresh notice
without there being any material to
establish either that the petitioners' land
was irrigated in the years 1378 Fasli,
1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli or that it has
become irrigated from a State irrigation
work after enforcement of Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1972. Therefore, fresh
proceedings could not be initiated even as
per the provisions of Section 29 (b) of the
Ceiling Act.

13. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the issuance of a third notice
to the petitioners is not permissible in
law.

14. Moreover, a holding of
Amarjeet Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh
(petitioner no.3) has also been included
while assessing the total holding of the
petitioners.
15. In this regard, it would be
relevant to have a look at the definitions of
family, holding, person, surplus land and
tenure holder, as given in sub-sections (c),
(d), (f), (k) and (l) of Section 3 of the
Ceiling Act, which are as follows: -

"(c) "Family" means as consisting
of the holder of a holding and any or all of
his following relations, not being tenureholders in their own separate right:
(i) wife or husband, as the case
may be;
(ii) dependent father and dependent
mother;
(iii) son and son's son, as long as
they are unseparated from the holder;
(iv) wife or widow of the persons
mentioned in sum clause (iii);
(v) daughter and unseparated son's
daughter, as long as they are unmarried.
Provided that where a relation falls
under the above clause in more than one
family, he shall nevertheless be a member
of only one family in accordance with his
choice, or if he is under any disability, in
accordance with the choice of the person
legally authorised to do so on his behalf.
(d) "Holding" means the land or
lands held by a person as a bhumidhar,
sirdar,
asami of
Gaon
Samaj
or
an asami mentioned
in
section 11 of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act I of
1951), or as a tenant under the U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act XVII of 1939),
other then a sub-tenant, or as lessee where
the
period
of
the
sub-lessee
of
a
Government with the period of the lease;
(f) "Person" shall include a family,
a limited liability company, and a society
registered under any law;
(k) "Surplus Land" means land
held by a tenure-holder in excess of the
ceiling area applicable to him and shall
4 All. Dasoda Singh Vs. Ayukt Lucknow Division, Lko.
1579
include buildings, wells and trees existing
thereon;
(l)
"Tenure-holder" means an
individual or a person who is the holder of
a holding;

16. Amarjeet Kaur wife of Iqbal
Singh is not a member of the family of
original tenure holder Gargaj Singh. Gargaj
Singh or even Iqbal singh is not the tenure
holder of the land held by Amarjeet Kaur
and the holding of Amarjeet Kaur wife of
Iqbal Singh cannot be added while taking
into consideration the total holding of
Gargaj Singh or Iqbal Singh for the purpose
of 10(2) of the Ceiling Act.

17. 0.587 hectares land bearing
Gata No. 58 hectares in the name of
Balwant Singh has also been treated as
holding of the petitioners on the ground
that Balwant Singh is not a resident of the
village in question and as the land was
found in possession of the petitioners, it has
been presumed that the petitioners were
holding land as its benami holders.

18. For declaring a land to by
surplus land of a person, that person must
be a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon
Samaj
or
an
asami
mentioned
in
section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or
as a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939, other then a sub-tenant, or as lessee
where the period of the sub-lessee of a
Government with the period of the lease
and unless the person falls in any of the
aforesaid categories mentioned in Section 3
(d) of the Ceiling Act, he will not be the
tenure holder of the land and the land
cannot be said to be a held by a tenureholder in excess of the ceiling area
applicable to him so as to warrant it being
declared surplus land.
19. 0.587 hectares land bearing
Gata No. 58 hectares in the name of
Balwant Singh could have been considered
to be benami property of the petitioners or
of their predecessor in interest in case the
land was recorded in their names prior to
the same being entered in the name of
Balwant Singh. As the land in question had
never been held by the petitioners or their
father and it has not been transferred by
them to Balwant Singh, the same cannot be
held to be surplus land of the petitioners
holding the same to be their benami
property merely because it was found in
possession of the petitioners.

20. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the reasons given by the
Prescribed Authority in the impugned order
dated 27.02.2007 are unsustainable in law,
which vitiate the order declaring 5.386
irrigated land of the petitioners as surplus
land.

21. The Commissioner, Lucknow
Division, Lucknow has dismissed the
Appeal No. 102/2006-07 filed by the
petitioners under Section 13(2) of the
Ceiling Act against the aforesaid order
dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Prescribed
Authority, without taking into consideration
the aforesaid aspects of the matter, which
vitiates the Appellate order also.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition
is
allowed
and
the
orders
dated
27.02.2007 passed by the Prescribed
Authority
Ceiling
Act/Additional
Collector, Kheri in Case No. 37/2004-05
and
25.07.2008
passed
by
the
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow dismissing the Appeal No.
102/2006-07 are hereby quashed and the
necessary consequences shall follow.
----------
1580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 4 ILRA 1580
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -C No. 3000116 of 2002

Master Shantul @ Shiv Prasad & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
P.L. Misra, Madan Gopal Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 5(6) & 13
- Transfer after appointed date (24.01.1971) -
Land purchased by petitioners' predecessor in
1973 - Ceiling proceedings initiated against
original tenure-holder - Land included in
surplus-
Appeal
and
remand
-Prescribed
Authority reconsidered entire record and earlier
orders -No evidence led by transferee to prove
bona fide transfer for adequate consideration or
absence of benami nature - Burden under S.
5(6) lies on transferee -No alternative land of
original tenure-holder available for adjustment -
Mere drafting error in confirming earlier order
does not vitiate decision -Concurrent findings of
authorities -No perversity or illegality - Article
226 jurisdiction not to be exercised on technical
errors .

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1.

याधचकाकताजगण
के
विद्वान
अधिििा श्री मदन गोपाि धमश्रा तर्था
विद्वान स्र्थायी अधिििा श्री िक्ष्मी मोिन
खरे को सुना तर्था पर्त्राििी का अििोकन
हकया।

2. भारतीय संवििान के अनुच्िेद
226 के अन्तगजत प्रस्तुत इस ररर् याधचका
द्वारा याधचकाकताजगण ने अपर म्जिाधिकारी
(वित्त/राजस्ि)/धनहित प्राधिकारी सीधिंग,
उन्नाि द्वारा िाद संख्या 5/8/5 अन्तगजत
िारा 2 उत्तर प्रदेि भूधम जोत सीमा
अधिरोपण अधिधनयम, 1960 (म्जसे इसके
उपरान्त
इस
धनणजय
में
'सीमारोपण
अधिधनयम' किा जाएगा) में पाररत धनणजय
तर्था आदेि हदनांक 13.12.2001 तर्था उि
आदेि के विरुद्ध पाररत अपीि संख्या
11/2001-2002
में
अपर
आयुि
(न्याधयक), िखनऊ मंडि िखनऊ द्वारा
पाररत
धनणजय
तर्था
आदेि
हदनांक
05.10.2002 की िैिता को चुनौती दी िै।

3. संक्षेप में प्रकरण के तथ्य इस
प्रकार िैं हक याधचकाकताजगण के वपता
स्िगीय विनय कुमार िुक्िा ने गार्ा संख्या
236 क्षेर्त्रफि 4 बीघा 14 वबस्िा 13
वबस्िांसी तर्था गार्ा संख्या 302 क्षेर्त्रफि 5
बीघा 6 वबस्िा म्स्र्थत िाम कलयाणपुर,
परगना पार्न, तिसीि पुरिा, जनपद उन्नाि
की भूधम रानी रघुिंि दुिारी से वििय-पर्त्र
हदनांक 07.11.1973 के माध्यम से िय की
र्थी तर्था भूधम का अध्यासन भी प्राप्त कर
धिया र्था। िाम कलयाणपुर में चकबंदी की
प्रहिया चि रिी र्थी, म्जस कारण से