# Devendra Nath Tandon & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000153 of 1998
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-nath-tandon-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52694
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Act, 1960 in respect of the agricultural holdings
of Sri Onkar Nath Tandon and his wife Smt.
Tarawati", particularly:
Whether "the holdings of late Onkar Nath
Tandon could be clubbed with those of his
widow, Smt. Tarawati"
Whether the authorities erred in ignoring the
death certificate and misreading statutory
provisions.

Headnotes
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - S. 10(2), S. 11(2) -
Clubbing of holdings - Death of tenureholder
prior
to
enforcement
date
(8.6.1973) - Succession opening before
enforcement of Act - Whether holdings of
deceased can be clubbed with widow -
Held, No - Where the death of the
recorded
tenure-holder
occurred
on
3.9.1970, i.e., prior to enforcement date,
"his three sons became tenure-holders in
their own right, while the holdings of Smt.
10 All. Devendra Nath Tandon & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
493
Tarawati remained separate" - Evidence -
Death certificate - Public document -
Formal
proof
-
Not
required
where
unrebutted - The death certificate was a
public document and required no formal
proof, particularly when the same was
never rebutted - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - S. 171 (as
amended by U.P. Act 27 of 2004) - Widow
not an heir at par with sons prior to 2004 -
Clubbing impermissible - Prior to this
amendment, a widow was not included in
the category of heirs alongside sons, and
hence the holdings could not have been
clubbed
-

Ceiling
Proceedings
-
Misreading of evidence - Illegality - Orders
liable to be set aside - Remand.

Held:
Authorities
misread
evidence
and
misapplied provisions of Ceiling Act -
The courts below have misread the evidence
and misinterpreted the provisions - Due to nonconsideration of this aspect impugned orders
suffer from apparent illegality - Death certificate
is a public document; no formal proof required;
non-consideration vitiates order - Widow not an
heir under S. 171 prior to 2004; clubbing
unlawful - Orders dated 6.5.1992 and
15.5.1998 set aside - writ petition allowed -
matter remanded. (Paras - 19,20,21,22,23,24)
(E-7)

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950.

List of Keywords
Ceiling Act; prescribed authority; public
document; death certificate; clubbed;
succession opened; tenure-holders; surplus
land; apparent illegality; partition; remanded;
irrigated / unirrigated.

Case Arising From
Orders challenged under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 passed by
Prescribed Authority, Sitapur (order dated
6.5.1992) Additional Commissioner, Lucknow
Division (order dated 15.5.1998)

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Sri Avadhesh Kumar
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel /
C.S.C.

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question was available on "as is where is",
"as is what is and "whatever there is" basis.
Hence, the facts of the case fall within the
parameters of law laid down in the
judgements cited above. In the light of
settled principles as discussed in above
judgements, once a person participates in
any auction while having knowledge that
the property is being e-auctioned having
the condition "as is where is", "as is what is
and "whatever there is" the duty is upon the
prospective bidder, who is the purchaser in
facts of the case, to exercise complete
caution in checking dues and liabilities.
Accordingly, first issue is decided against
the petitioner and the prayer against
respondents is rejected.

14. The second issue must also be
decided against the petitioner as the
grievance regarding non-compliance with
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Apartment (Promotion of Construction,
Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010
was raised only after the petitioner had
taken possession of the property, which
was well after the execution of the sale.
The terms and conditions of the sale were
known to the petitioner at the time of
participation
in
the
E-auction
and
consequent purchase and he had option of
not participating if the conditions were not
acceptable and, therefore, the respondent
Bank has rightly responded that it bears no
liability where the purchaser has failed to
exercise due diligence in accordance with
the conditions specified in the e-auction
notice.

11. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to grant indulgence in the matter
although liberty rests with the petitioner to
pursue remedies available under the Uttar
Pradesh
Apartment
(Promotion
of
Construction, Ownership and Maintenance)
Act, 2010, if so advised.

12. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed and consigned to records.

----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000153 of 1998

Devendra Nath Tandon & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Avadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to proceedings "initiated under
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 in respect of the agricultural holdings
of Sri Onkar Nath Tandon and his wife Smt.
Tarawati", particularly:
Whether "the holdings of late Onkar Nath
Tandon could be clubbed with those of his
widow, Smt. Tarawati"
Whether the authorities erred in ignoring the
death certificate and misreading statutory
provisions.

Headnotes
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - S. 10(2), S. 11(2) -
Clubbing of holdings - Death of tenureholder
prior
to
enforcement
date
(8.6.1973) - Succession opening before
enforcement of Act - Whether holdings of
deceased can be clubbed with widow -
Held, No - Where the death of the
recorded
tenure-holder
occurred
on
3.9.1970, i.e., prior to enforcement date,
"his three sons became tenure-holders in
their own right, while the holdings of Smt.
10 All. Devendra Nath Tandon & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
493
Tarawati remained separate" - Evidence -
Death certificate - Public document -
Formal
proof
-
Not
required
where
unrebutted - The death certificate was a
public document and required no formal
proof, particularly when the same was
never rebutted - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - S. 171 (as
amended by U.P. Act 27 of 2004) - Widow
not an heir at par with sons prior to 2004 -
Clubbing impermissible - Prior to this
amendment, a widow was not included in
the category of heirs alongside sons, and
hence the holdings could not have been
clubbed
-

Ceiling
Proceedings
-
Misreading of evidence - Illegality - Orders
liable to be set aside - Remand.

Held:
Authorities
misread
evidence
and
misapplied provisions of Ceiling Act -
The courts below have misread the evidence
and misinterpreted the provisions - Due to nonconsideration of this aspect impugned orders
suffer from apparent illegality - Death certificate
is a public document; no formal proof required;
non-consideration vitiates order - Widow not an
heir under S. 171 prior to 2004; clubbing
unlawful - Orders dated 6.5.1992 and
15.5.1998 set aside - writ petition allowed -
matter remanded. (Paras - 19,20,21,22,23,24)
(E-7)

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950.

List of Keywords
Ceiling Act; prescribed authority; public
document; death certificate; clubbed;
succession opened; tenure-holders; surplus
land; apparent illegality; partition; remanded;
irrigated / unirrigated.

Case Arising From
Orders challenged under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 passed by
Prescribed Authority, Sitapur (order dated
6.5.1992) Additional Commissioner, Lucknow
Division (order dated 15.5.1998)

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Sri Avadhesh Kumar
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel /
C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.P.
Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent.

2. The instant writ petition arises from
proceedings initiated under
the
U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 in respect of the agricultural
holdings of Sri Onkar Nath Tandon and his
wife Smt. Tarawati, whose three sons are
the present petitioners, all residents of
District Sitapur.

3. Sri Onkar Nath Tandon died on
3.9.1970, survived by his widow Smt.
Tarawati and three sons, namely Devendra
Nath Tandon, Shailendra Nath Tandon, and
Kamlesh
Nath
Tandon
(the
present
petitioners). The Ceiling Act was brought
into force with effect from 8.6.1973.

4. On 20.5.1974, a notice under
Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to Smt.
Tarawati and her three sons. Objections
were filed by Smt. Tarawati on 1.7.1974,
whereupon
the
Prescribed
Authority,
Sitapur,
framed
issues
and
recorded
evidence.

5. By order dated 1.1.1975, the
prescribed
authority
held
that
Smt.
Tarawati was entitled to 1/4th share and the
petitioners jointly to 3/4th share in the
holdings of the deceased. It was further
held that 2.44 acres of land in Village
Gurera was unirrigated and, after giving
18.4 acres to the tenure-holders, 4.25 acres
in irrigated terms was declared surplus.
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The petitioners rely on the fact that
in
consolidation
proceedings,
the
Consolidation Officer, Sitapur, had already
recognized a partition by order dated
21.8.1972, allotting 1/4th share to Smt.
Tarawati and 3/4th to the petitioners. This
partition was accepted in the ceiling
proceedings.

7. On an application under Section
11(2) of the Act, the case was reopened on
15.3.1990. The petitioners contended that
as their father had died on 3.9.1970, i.e.,
prior to the cut-off date of 8.6.1973, his
holdings could not be clubbed with those of
the widow. They further urged that Smt.
Tarawati held only 17.97 acres (12.91 acres
in Village Mohammadpur and 5.06 acres in
Village Gurera), which was within ceiling
limits, and she had transferred portions
thereof before 8.6.1973. The remaining
lands in Villages Mohammadpur, Gurera,
and Ahmadabad belonged exclusively to
Onkar Nath Tandon and, after his death,
devolved upon the petitioners.

8. The prescribed authority, Sitapur,
however,
by
order
dated
16.5.1992,
dismissed the objections, holding that the
petitioners had failed to establish the death
of Onkar Nath Tandon prior to 8.6.1973
and that clubbing of his land with that of
Smt. Tarawati was rightly made.

9. Two appeals were preferred before
the Commissioner, Lucknow Division,
where the petitioners relied upon the death
certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon issued by
the
District
Health
Officer,
Nagar
Mahapalika, Lucknow, as well as certified
extracts of revenue records. The Additional
Commissioner
(Appellate
Authority)
dismissed the appeals and affirmed the
order of the prescribed authority.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the courts below have
misread the evidence and misinterpreted
the provisions of the Ceiling Act in
clubbing the holdings of late Onkar Nath
Tandon with those of his widow. It is urged
that succession opened upon the death of
Onkar Nath Tandon on 3.9.1970, prior to
the enforcement of the Ceiling Act on
8.6.1973, and his three sons became tenureholders in their own right, while the
holdings of Smt. Tarawati remained
separate.

11. It is further submitted that the
death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon,
issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar
Mahapalika, Lucknow, was a public
document within the meaning of law and
required no formal proof, particularly when
the same was never rebutted by the
opposite parties.

12. The petitioners also emphasize that
the courts below failed to take into
consideration the amendment of Section
171 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, whereby
widows were placed on par with sons as
heirs only by U.P. Act No.27 of 2004
(w.e.f. 23.8.2004). Prior to this amendment,
a widow was not included in the category
of heirs alongside sons, and hence the
holdings of Smt. Tarawati could not have
been clubbed with those of her deceased
husband.

13. It is thus the case of the petitioners
that the findings of the prescribed authority
and the appellate courts are unsustainable,
having been arrived at by ignoring binding
evidence and by misapplying statutory
provisions.
Consequently,
the
orders
declaring surplus land are liable to be set
aside.
10 All. Devendra Nath Tandon & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
495

14. On the other hand, Sri S.P.
Maurya, learned Standing Counsel submits
that the orders dated 6.5.1992, passed by
the prescribed authority and 15.5.1998,
passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow have rightly
been passed and they do not suffer from
any infirmity or illegality.

15.
After
having
heard
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, I perused the material on
record.

16. A notice under Section 10(2) of
the Act was issued to Smt. Tarawati and
her three sons. Objections were filed by
Smt. Tarawati on 1.7.1974, whereupon the
prescribed authority, Sitapur, framed issues
and recorded evidence. Vide order dated
1.1.1975, the prescribed authority held that
Smt. Tarawati was entitled to 1/4th share
and the petitioners jointly to 3/4th share in
the holdings of the deceased. It was further
held that 2.44 acres of land in Village
Gurera was unirrigated and, after giving
18.4 acres to the tenure-holders, 4.25 acres
in irrigated terms was declared surplus.

17.
The
Consolidation
Officer,
Sitapur, had already recognized a partition
by order dated 21.8.1972, allotting 1/4th
share to Smt. Tarawati and 3/4th to the
petitioners. This partition was accepted in
the ceiling proceedings. On an application
under Section 11(2) of the Act, the case
was reopened on 15.3.1990. The petitioners
contended that as their father had died on
3.9.1970, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of
8.6.1973, his holdings could not be clubbed
with those of the widow. They further
urged that Smt. Tarawati held only 17.97
acres
(12.91
acres
in
Village
Mohammadpur and 5.06 acres in Village
Gurera), which was within ceiling limits,
and she had transferred portions thereof
before 8.6.1973. The remaining lands in
Villages
Mohammadpur,
Gurera,
and
Ahmadabad belonged exclusively to Onkar
Nath Tandon and, after his death, devolved
upon the petitioners.

18. The prescribed authority, Sitapur,
by order dated 16.5.1992, dismissed the
objections, holding that the petitioners had
failed to establish the death of Onkar Nath
Tandon prior to 8.6.1973 and that clubbing
of his land with that of Smt. Tarawati was
rightly made. Two appeals were preferred
before
the
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division, where the petitioners relied upon
the death certificate of Onkar Nath Tandon
issued by the District Health Officer, Nagar
Mahapalika, Lucknow, as well as certified
extracts of revenue records. The Additional
Commissioner
(appellate
authority)
dismissed the appeals and affirmed the
order of the prescribed authority.

19. The courts below have misread the
evidence and misinterpreted the provisions
of the Ceiling Act in clubbing the holdings
of late Onkar Nath Tandon with those of
his widow. The succession opened upon the
death of Onkar Nath Tandon on 3.9.1970,
prior to the enforcement of the Ceiling Act
on 8.6.1973, and his three sons became
tenure-holders in their own right, while the
holdings of Smt. Tarawati remained
separate. Due to non-consideration of this
aspect of the matter, the impugned orders
suffer from apparent illegality and are
liable to be set aside.

20. The death certificate of Onkar
Nath Tandon, issued by the District Health
Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, was
a public document within the meaning of
law
and
required
no
formal
proof,
particularly when the same was never
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rebutted by the opposite parties. Due to
non-consideration of death certificate of
Onkar Nath Tandon, the order is per-se
illegal and is liable to be set aside.

21. The courts below failed to take
into consideration the amendment of
Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
whereby widows were placed on par with
sons as heirs only by U.P. Act No.27 of
2004. Prior to this amendment, a widow
was not included in the category of heirs
alongside sons, and hence the holdings of
Smt. Tarawati could not have been clubbed
with those of her deceased husband. Nonconsideration of this aspect of the matter
too makes the impugned orders perverse in
nature and hence, they are liable to be set
aside.

22. The findings of the prescribed
authority and the appellate courts are
unsustainable, having been arrived at by
ignoring
binding
evidence
and
by
misapplying
statutory
provisions.
Consequently, the orders declaring surplus
land are liable to be set aside.

23. In view of the reasons recorded
above, the impugned orders dated 6.5.1992,
passed by the prescribed authority, Sitapur
and 15.5.1998, passed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow suffer from apparent illegality
and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
the impugned orders dated 6.5.1992, passed
by the prescribed authority, Sitapur and
15.5.1998, passed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow are hereby set aside. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

24. The matter is remanded back to the
prescribed
authority
to
take
into
consideration the medical certificate issued
by the District Health Officer, Nagar
Mahapalika, Lucknow as well as the
provisions of amended Section 171 of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 and to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law within a
period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 496
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7025 of 2025
& other
connected cases

Sushant Prashar @ Sushant Parashar
...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna, Suhaib Ashraf

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Aakash Prasad

Issue for Consideration
Whether the applicants, accused of offences
under Sections 61(2), 112 and 316(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, arising out of an alleged
conspiracy to leak the question paper of a
departmental promotional examination, were
entitled to be enlarged on bail, having regard to
the nature of allegations, the role attributed to
each applicant, the stage of proceedings, delay
in grant of prosecution sanction, and the
principles governing grant of bail in serious and
economic offences.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.61(2),
112, 316(5) - Prevention of Corruption