# Gurmeet Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 483
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000008 of 1995
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gurmeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-50680
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 -
Section 10(2) - Notice to tenure holders
failing
to
submit
a
statement
or
submitting an incomplete or incorrect
statement - no inquiry regarding the
validity of the sale-deed under section
5(6) of the Act could be made with
regard to the genuineness of the saledeed executed prior to 24.1.1971.(Para -
19)

Notice under Section 10(2) of Act - issued to
original tenure holder - proposed to declare
83.57 Acres of land as 'Surplus' - controversy
- whether notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act of 1960 can be issued again regarding the
same holding - original tenure holder had
objections to the sale-deeds - dismissed by
Prescribed Authority - sold major portion of
land by executing registered sale-deeds - all
sale-deeds executed prior to cut-of-date, i.e.
24.01.1971 - prescribed in the Act of
1960.(Para - 4 ,5, 17)

HELD:-
Court
finds
it
impermissible
for
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority to
dispute sale-deeds in the case. Due to principle
of res-judicata, the same lands were subjected
to the Act of 1960 in 1975 and excluded from
the original tenure holder's holdings, and
therefore cannot be subjected to the Act of
1960 again. Contradicts Prescribed Authority's
different view. Orders passed by Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate
Authority
set
aside.(Para -22,23)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
483
Meerut Division, Meerut as well as order
dated 06.11.1995 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow
deserves to be quashed and hence it is
quashed and a direction is issued to
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to
decide the application of petitioner for
condonation of delay in filing objection
dated 19.08.1992 before him in light of
observations made above.

18. It is further directed that till
disposal of objection of the petitioner under
Section 285-I of the Rules, 1952, status quo
should
be
maintained
regarding
the
property of petitioner which was subject
matter of impugned auction proceedings.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
the present petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 483
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 3000008 of 1995
And
Writ C No. 3000066 of 1995

Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. R.K. Srivastava, Shyam Mohan Pradhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 -
Section 10(2) - Notice to tenure holders
failing
to
submit
a
statement
or
submitting an incomplete or incorrect
statement - no inquiry regarding the
validity of the sale-deed under section
5(6) of the Act could be made with
regard to the genuineness of the saledeed executed prior to 24.1.1971.(Para -
19)

Notice under Section 10(2) of Act - issued to
original tenure holder - proposed to declare
83.57 Acres of land as 'Surplus' - controversy
- whether notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act of 1960 can be issued again regarding the
same holding - original tenure holder had
objections to the sale-deeds - dismissed by
Prescribed Authority - sold major portion of
land by executing registered sale-deeds - all
sale-deeds executed prior to cut-of-date, i.e.
24.01.1971 - prescribed in the Act of
1960.(Para - 4 ,5, 17)

HELD:-
Court
finds
it
impermissible
for
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority to
dispute sale-deeds in the case. Due to principle
of res-judicata, the same lands were subjected
to the Act of 1960 in 1975 and excluded from
the original tenure holder's holdings, and
therefore cannot be subjected to the Act of
1960 again. Contradicts Prescribed Authority's
different view. Orders passed by Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate
Authority
set
aside.(Para -22,23)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Devendra Nath Singh (Dead), through legal
heirs & ors. Vs Civil Judge & anr., AIR 1999 SC
2264

2. Pyare & ors. Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation,
Camp at Faizabad & ors., Writ Petition No. 423
of 1977

3. Ramadhar Singh Vs Prescribed Authority &
ors., 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 702

4. Indrapal Singh & ors. Vs Prescribed Authority,
Meerut & anr., 2007(103) RD 102

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Both the aforementioned cases are
taken up together, as they arise of common
proceedings.

2. Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan,
Advocate along with Dr. R.K. Srivastava,
Advocate for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent are present.

3. By means of the instant petition the
petitioner has challenged the proceedings
and orders passed in proceedings under the
provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter
referred as 'Act of 1960').

4. It has been submitted that a notice
under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was
issued to the original tenure holder Sri
Labh Singh S/o Mehtab Singh, which was
served on him on 03.12.1974. As per the
said notice, it was proposed to declare
83.57 Acres of land as 'Surplus'.

5. The original tenure holder filed his
objections to the said notice and stated that
he had sold major portion of the said land
by executing registered sale-deeds of 12.05
Acres on 03.06.1970 in favour of Gur
Bachan
Kaur;
of
12.05
Acres
on
08.04.1970 in favour of Jitendra Singh; of
12.05 Acre on 08.04.1970 in favour of
Binder Kaur; of 12.05 Acre on 03.06.1970
in favour of Gurmeet Singh; of 12.05 Acre
on 03.06.1970 in favour of Beayant Singh
Kaur; of 12.30 Acre on 03.06.1970 in
favour of Indrapal Singh; of 11.24 Acre on
18.04.1970 in favour of Arvind Kaur; and
he further submitted that all these saledeeds have been executed prior to the cutof-date, i.e. 24.01.1971, prescribed in the
Act of 1960 and hence the said land ought
to be excluded from the holdings of the
original holder. It was further submitted
that after excluding the said lands there was
no land, which exceeded the ceiling-limit,
which is prescribed in the said Act, and
accordingly prayed for discharge of the
notice issued to him. The original tenure
holder had filed evidence of all sale-deeds
before the Prescribed Authority and also
examined himself in support of the
objections raised by him.

6. The Prescribed Authority after
considering all the material on record and
also going through the sale-deeds, agreed
with the objections filed by the original
tenure holder and excluded all the lands,
which have been alienated on the basis of
the aforesaid sale-deeds and discharged the
notices issued to the original tenure holder.

7. The controversy in the present case
has started on issuance of another notice
under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 on
08.07.1991 to Dheeraj Singh, who is the
son of the original tenure holder. The
objections were filed by taking the plea that
this aspect of the matter has already been
considered by the Prescribed Authority,
when he had issued notice with regard to
the same holding to the then original tenure
holder Labh Singh and on the basis of the
sale-deeds he had discharged the notices. It
has been submitted that once notices were
discharged, proceedings under the Act of
1960 came to an end and the Prescribed
Authority had discharged the notices after
due consideration of all the evidence on
record, especially the sale-deeds where his
holding was sold to seven persons prior to
the cut-of-date.

8. The State, on the other hand,
submitted that the sale-deeds executed by
Labh Singh were Sham and fictitious and
have been entered into only to evade the
ceiling proceedings under the Act of 1960.
It has also been stated that all the vendees
8 All. Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
485
were minor, at the time the sale-deeds were
executed and they were also minor on the
date of coming into effect of the said Act
and, in fact, the land had at all times been
vested in the original tenure holder and
subsequently in the petitioner, who is his
son. In this way, it has been submitted that
the petitioner held land more than the land
as prescribed under the Act of 1960 and
consequently, there was no infirmity in
subjecting him to the proceeding under the
said Act.

9. The Prescribed Authority by means
of an order dated 22.06.1993 rejected all
the objections raised by the petitioner and
declared 59.182 Acre as the 'Surplus Land'.
He returned a finding that all the vendees
were minor on the date when the sale-deeds
were executed and that Labh Singh had
sold the land to his grand-children, while
he continued to be in possession of the said
land even pursuant to the sale-deeds. With
regard to the plea that proceedings under
section 10(2), Act of 1960 had been
finalized, the Prescribed Authority has no
power to re-open the same, as the
proceedings were bad considering the
principle of res-judicata, he rejected the
contention of the petitioner stating that the
parties are different and the land is also
different, while deciding Issue No. 5.

10. Being aggrieved by order of the
Prescribed Authority dated 22.06.1993, two
appeals were preferred by the petitioner and
decided by the common judgment by the
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial)-I, Lucknow
Mandal, Lucknow, by means of order dated
22.06.1994. The said appeals were rejected
and the order of the Prescribed Authority was
confirmed. While rejecting the said appeals,
the Appellate Authority noticed that the State
had not given any details about the age of the
vendees to whom sale-deeds had been
executed by Labh Singh and further gave a
categorical finding that the notices issued
under section 10(2) were defective in as
much as the details of the family were not
properly shown and it was also not indicated
as to whether they were minor or not.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while assailing the findings recorded by the
Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority has submitted that institution of the
proceedings
was
illegal,
arbitrary
and
contrary to the statutory provision. He further
stated that once the proceedings had
previously been initiated under Section 10(2),
Act of 1960 against the original tenure holder
Labh Singh and his objections were sustained
in as much as all these sale-deeds were found
to be genuine and correct and were excluded
from the original holding of Labh Singh, then
the same land could not again be subjected to
the provisions of the Act of 1960 and once
the sale-deeds have been executed without
demur, they cannot be subjected to challenge
under fresh proceedings under section 10(2)
of the Act of 1960. He also submitted that the
principle of res-judicata applies with full
force even to the ceiling proceedings under
the Act of 1960 and any finding recorded by
the Prescribed Authority binds him in
subsequent proceedings. He submitted that
once the objections raised by Labh Singh
were found to be genuine and correct and the
lands which had been alienated on the basis
of the sale-deeds were excluded from his
holding, same can not again be considered, as
part of the holding of the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the various judgments,
details of which are given below:

(1)
Devendra
Nath
Singh
(Dead), through legal heirs & ors. V.
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Judge & anr., AIR 1999 SC 2264,
para-3 of which reads as under:

"3.
Having
examined
the
provisions of Section 13-A and Section 38B of the Act, we are of the considered
opinion that under Section 13-A the
Prescribed Authority has the power to
reopen the matter within two years from the
date of the notification under sub-section
(4) of Section 14 to rectify any apparent
mistake which was there on the face of the
record. That power will certainly not
include the power to entertain fresh
evidence and re-examine the question as to
whether the two sons, namely, Hamendra
and Shailendra were major or not. The
power under Section 38-B merely indicates
that if any finding or decision was there by
any
ancillary
forum
prior
to
the
commencement of the said Section in
respect of a matter which is governed by
the Ceiling Act then such findings will not
operate as res judicata in a proceeding
under the Act. That would not cover the
case where findings have already reached
its finality in the very case under the Act. In
this view of the matter we have no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that
the
Prescribed
Authority
had
no
jurisdiction to reopen the question of
majority of the two sons in purported
exercise of the power under Section 13-A. If
the Authority had no jurisdiction, question
of waiver of jurisdiction does not arise, as
contended by learned counsel for the
respondent."

(2) In the case of Pyare and ors.
V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Camp
at Faizabad & ors., Writ Petition No. 423
of 1977 the following has been observed:

"8. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has contended that the rule of
res judicata is a technical rule and the
technicalities of law should not be allowed
to override the interest of justice. The rule
of res judicata may be technical, but the
basis on which the said rule rests is
founded on consideration of public at large
that finality should attach to the binding
decisions pronounced by the courts of
competent jurisdiction and that individuals
should not be vexed twice over with the
same kind of litigation. The principles of
constructive res judicata also apply to the
writ proceedings. The omission to raise a
point in an earlier petition, which could
have been raised, would debar the litigant
from raising that point in the subsequent
petition. (See Devilal Modi Vs. Sales Tax
Officer and others, AIR 1965 SC 1150); (T.
Govindraja Mudaliar Vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu & others, AIR 1973 SC 974)." .

13. He submits that once the finding
was recorded by the Prescribed Authority
that the land sold by the original tenure
holder by means of the sale-deeds, ought to
have been excluded, the same lands could
not have been clubbed together at the hands
of the petitioner, who is legal heir of the
original tenure holder, now to declare the
said land as falling within the ambit of Act
of 1960.

14. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand has opposed the writ-petition.
He submits that there is no infirmity in the
re-initiation of proceedings under Section
10(2) of the Act of 1960. The State derived
subsequent knowledge that the petitioners
were minor at the time, when the saledeeds were entered into and also on the
date of coming into force of the Act of
1960 and, consequently, from the face of it
is evident that the said sale-deeds were
fraud and subterfuge, with a view to evade
the clutches of Act of 1960. He also
submits that once it is shown that all the
grand-children of the original tenure holder
to whom the lands were transferred, were
8 All. Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
487
minor, then it would be assumed that they
fell into the family of the petitioner and,
consequently, all their holding have to be
considered
collectively
as
per
the
provisions of Section 2(7) of the Act of
1960.

15. The said argument has been
contested by the learned counsel for the
petitioner by stating that this aspect was
considered
partially
in
the
proper
perspective by the Appellate Authority, and
only Indra Pal, who was born in 1949, has
been held to be a major and 2.00 Hectares
of land has been excluded as such. He
submits that even the findings recorded by
the Appellate Court in this regard are
arbitrary and illegal. In his written
statement, he clearly indicated that though
Indra Pal was born in 1949, while
Devendra/Dil Binder Kaur was born in
1952, Gur Bachan Kaur was born in1954;
Gurmeet Singh was born in 1955 and,
hence all the said persons were major on
the date of coming into force of the same
Act, i.e., 08.06.1973 and even the finding
in this regard recorded by the Appellate
Authority is clearly illegal and arbitrary
and contrary to records.

16. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.

17. The main controversy, which has
engaged attention of this Court is as to
whether notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act of 1960 can be issued again with
regard to the same holding, whereas
previously
the
notices
have
been
discharged, after receiving the objections of
the original tenure holder, and the land has
been found to be not within the ambit of
Act of 1960. In the present case,
undoubtedly notices were issued previously
to the original tenure holder Labh Singh
and on his submitting an objection, stating
that the said land had been sold prior to the
cut-of-date by means of seven registered
sale-deeds and the land remaining with the
original tenure holder does not fall within
the Act of 1960, the Prescribed Authority
duly examined the said objections and
dropped
the
proceedings.
The
only
difference, which has been made since
issue of the first notice, is that Labh Singh
has died in the meanwhile and now the
notice has been issued to his son, the
present petitioner for the same holding.
Now the stand of the respondents has
changed dramatically and whereas on the
first occasion they did not challenge or
assailed the validity of the sale-deeds, now
they have said that the said sale-deeds have
been entered only to evade the provisions
of the Act of 1960. It is stated that the
vendees were minor at the time of
execution of the sale-deeds and the Deeds
have been entered only with a view to
reduce the original holding of the original
tenure holder. The said grounds raised by
the State have been accepted by both the
parties.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
on the other hands, has submitted that apart
from the fact that he notice cannot be
issued again for the same holding, it is also
stated that once a finding has been
returned, the validity of the sale-deeds
entered into prior to the cut-of-date cannot
be examined by the Prescribed Authority.
In support of his submissions he has relied
upon a judgment in the case of Ramadhar
Singh v. Prescribed Authority & ors.,
1994 Supp. (3) SCC 702, wherein the
following has been held:

"??? The existence of the sale
deed being not disputed and it having taken
place, as said before, on February 24,
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1969, prior to the appointed day that is
January 24, 1971, the inquiry regarding the
validity of the sale deed under sub-section
(6) of Section 5 was totally misplaced.
Thereunder, as it appears to us, the
appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to
be put the validity of the sale deed to test
since his jurisdiction arose only when the
deed of transfer had been effected on or
after the appointed day. Not only the first
and the appellate authority under the Act
persisted in that view, but the High Court
too proceeded on that basis. The effort of
the appellant to have it declared that the
authorities had no jurisdiction to invalidate
the sale under sub-section (6) of Section 5
when read with Explanation II to subsection (1) of Section 5 also was a futile
attempt because the High Court followed
the path, as did the authorities under the
Act, and rejected the writ petition. We are
of the view that this was a wholly erroneous
approach. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 did
not confer jurisdiction on the authorities to
determine the validity of the sale and if that
is so, any finding of theirs as to the
contents of the sale, is of no assistance. In
the result the appeal must succeed.
Accordingly, allowing the same we set
aside all the orders of the authorities below
as also that of the High Court. No costs."

19. He further relies upon a judgment
of this court in the case of Indrapal Singh
& ors. v. Prescribed Authority, Meerut &
anr., 2007(103) RD 102, wherein the
following has been observed:

"8. The Supreme Court in Ram
Adhar Singh v. The Prescribed Authority
and others,' has held that no inquiry
regarding the va- lidity of the sale-deed
under section 5(6) of the Act could be made
with regard to the genuineness of the saledeed executed prior to 24.1.1971. The
Supreme Court further held that appellate
authority had no jurisdiction to put the
validity of the sale-deed to test since its
jurisdiction arose only when the deed of
transfer had been effected on or after the
appointed
day,
i.e.,
24.1.1971.
Consequently, this Court holds that the
prescribed authority could not consider the
genuineness
of
the
sale-deed
dated
9.1.1970 and the land transferred vide saledeed is liable to be excluded from the
holding of the petitioner."

20. Rebutting the arguments of the
petitioner, it is stated by the learned
Standing Counsel that in the present
proceedings the sale-deeds cannot be relied
upon and read, as sought by the petitioner
and all the lands, which have been
alienated by the said sale-deeds, in fact
should be taken and added as part of the
original holdings of the petitioner and
subjected to the provisions of the Act of
1960.

21. This court has also examined the
said contention. Apart from the fact that the
sale-deeds were presented before the
Prescribed Authority, wherein he had issued
notice in 1970 to the original tenure holder
Sri Labh Singh and he had dropped the
proceedings, accepting the sale-deeds and
excluded the lands from the original
holdings of Labh Singh. The validity of the
sale-deeds, which were entered into prior to
the coming into force of the Act of 1960
could not have been looked into. The
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Ramadhar Singh (supra) lays down the
law in this regard and there cannot be any
deviation from the same.

22. In the light of the above, this court
also finds itself bound to follow the
aforesaid provision enunciated by the
8 All. Sukh Raj Singh Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors.
489
Supreme Court and accordingly it was
impermissible for the Prescribed Authority
and the Appellate Authority to dispute the
said sale-deeds in the present case before it.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered view that considering the fact
that the proceedings were hit by the
principle of res-judicata, as the same lands
were subjected to the proceedings under the
Act of 1960 in the year 1975 and they have
been excluded frm the holdings of the
original tenure holder, the same land cannot
again be subjected to the Act of 1960, and a
different view taken by the Prescribed
Authority.

23. In the light of the above, the writpetitions are allowed. The orders dated
22.06.1993 and 22.06.1994 passed by the
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Authority are set aside.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 489
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 3000057 of 2001

Sukh Raj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vinod K. Singh, Ankit Pande, Ashutosh
Singh, S.N. Goswami

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section 10(2) - Notice to tenure holders
failing
to
submit
a
statement
or
submitting an incomplete or incorrect
statement - once an order has been
passed, it is complied with, accepted by
the other party and derived the benefit
out of it, he cannot challenge it on any
ground. (Para-15)

(B) Word of phrases - Acquiescence - tacit
or passive acceptance, Approbate and
Reprobate - blow hot and cold - fast and
loose - doctrine of election - rule of
estoppel - one cannot approbate and
reprobate is inherent in it - doctrine of
estoppel by election is one among the
species of estoppel in pais (or equitable
estoppel) - rule of equity .(Para -15)

(C) Word of phrases - doctrine of election
- no party can accept and reject the same
instrument - a person cannot say at one
time that a transaction is valid and
thereby obtain some advantage, to which
he could only be entitled on the footing
that it is valid, and then turn round and
say it is void for the purpose of securing
some other advantage. (Para -15)

Order of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) -
challenged - dismissed appeal of petitioner -
court declared 9.702 acres of irrigated land as
surplus land - ordered entire surplus land to be
removed from petitioner's village - petitioner
estopped from challenging an order - ground -
cannot be permitted to both approbate and
reprobate - after acquiescence of order - not
challenged by petitioner - grievance of petitioner
- no lands from village Bankati should be
considered surplus - chosen choice should be
respected by prescribed authority. (Para -
2,3,6,15,17)

HELD:-Direction to respondents not to deduct
any land form village Bankati. Surplus if any land
be restored to petitioner. As per his choice land of
the petitioner in other villages may be taken as
surplus. Petitioner can apply to the prescribed
authority within four weeks, and orders will be
issued within two months.(Para-20)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-