# Hanif Khan & Ors v. Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1074
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-08
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1002036 of 2003
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hanif-khan-ors-v-addl-commissioner-lko-ors-52618
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Vijay Kumar Pandey,Yogendra Nath
Yadav

Issue for consideration
The key issue for the court to consider (a)
Whether the cancellation of the revenue record
entries and the subsequent orders were passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice.(b)
Whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate had the
jurisdiction to cancel a confirmed sale under
Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,1952.

Headnotes
Civil matter- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules ,1952- Rule 285-ALand Revenue-Auction Sale-Confirmation
and
Cancellation-Jurisdiction
of
Authorities-An auction sale of land held
for recovery of outstanding loan/land
revenue, which was confirmed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate cannot subsequently
be
cancelled
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/U.P. Ziladhikari-Rule 285-A of
the Rules 1952 provides that the power
to cancel a confirmed auction sale vests
in the Commissioner-An order cancelling
revenue record entries or a confirmed
auction sale, especially when the entry
has been continuing for more than a year,
passed without issuing a notice or giving
an opportunity of hearing to the affected
party is liable to be set aside-Revenue
authorities cannot cancel a sale certificate
or expunge entries merely on suspicion or
the ground that the auction file is
untraceable.

Held
Petitioner no. 1 and the predecessors of other
petitioners
were
declared
the
auction
purchasers, and the auction was confirmed by
the Sub Divisional Officer on 1 january 1963,
the sale certificate was issued in 1995 and
mutation was effected in their names-The
tehsildar reported doubt over proceedings due
to untraceable file of the auction-The subdivisional officer ordered the cancellation of the
entries made in the record-For cancellation of
entries, particularly when an auction took place
in 1961 and the sale certificate was issued in
1995 due to alluvial action, the courts must
come to a categorical finding that the auction
proceedings had not taken place-The court must
make
an
endeavor
to
call
for
record
cancellation based only on presumption or
assumption is unsustainable in law-The court
held that the entire proceedings were deemed
surreptitious and contrary to the principles of
natural justice. writ petition is allowed.(Para 10
to 20) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules ,1952

List of Keywords
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules ,1952, Auction Sale, Cancellation of Entry,
Natural justice, Rules 285-A, Commissioner,
Remand, Opportunity of hearing, Sub Divisional
Officer/U.P. Ziladhikari.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 1002036 of
2003
 Hanif
Khan
&
Ors
Vs.
Additional
Commissioner Lucknow & Ors.
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
08.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
10 All. Hanif Khan & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
1075
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Govind Saran Nigam, Hari Om Rana, Mohd.
Aslam Khan
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C.,Vijay Kumar Pandey Yogendra Nath
Yadav

Case law cited:
Chaturgun & Ors Vs State of U.P. & Ors (2005)
27 RCR (Civil) 247, Hari Ram Vs Collector
(2004)2 RD 360, A.M.U., Aligarh Vs M.A. Khan
(2000) 4 AWC 2993 (SC); AIR (2000) Supreme
Court 2783, S.L.Gupta Vs A.D.Gupta (2003) AIR
SCW 7089-referred to.

## Text

1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1074
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1002036 of 2003
And other Cases

Hanif Khan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Govind Saran Nigam, Hari Om Rana, Mohd.
Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Vijay Kumar Pandey,Yogendra Nath
Yadav

Issue for consideration
The key issue for the court to consider (a)
Whether the cancellation of the revenue record
entries and the subsequent orders were passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice.(b)
Whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate had the
jurisdiction to cancel a confirmed sale under
Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,1952.

Headnotes
Civil matter- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules ,1952- Rule 285-ALand Revenue-Auction Sale-Confirmation
and
Cancellation-Jurisdiction
of
Authorities-An auction sale of land held
for recovery of outstanding loan/land
revenue, which was confirmed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate cannot subsequently
be
cancelled
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/U.P. Ziladhikari-Rule 285-A of
the Rules 1952 provides that the power
to cancel a confirmed auction sale vests
in the Commissioner-An order cancelling
revenue record entries or a confirmed
auction sale, especially when the entry
has been continuing for more than a year,
passed without issuing a notice or giving
an opportunity of hearing to the affected
party is liable to be set aside-Revenue
authorities cannot cancel a sale certificate
or expunge entries merely on suspicion or
the ground that the auction file is
untraceable.

Held
Petitioner no. 1 and the predecessors of other
petitioners
were
declared
the
auction
purchasers, and the auction was confirmed by
the Sub Divisional Officer on 1 january 1963,
the sale certificate was issued in 1995 and
mutation was effected in their names-The
tehsildar reported doubt over proceedings due
to untraceable file of the auction-The subdivisional officer ordered the cancellation of the
entries made in the record-For cancellation of
entries, particularly when an auction took place
in 1961 and the sale certificate was issued in
1995 due to alluvial action, the courts must
come to a categorical finding that the auction
proceedings had not taken place-The court must
make
an
endeavor
to
call
for
record
cancellation based only on presumption or
assumption is unsustainable in law-The court
held that the entire proceedings were deemed
surreptitious and contrary to the principles of
natural justice. writ petition is allowed.(Para 10
to 20) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules ,1952

List of Keywords
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules ,1952, Auction Sale, Cancellation of Entry,
Natural justice, Rules 285-A, Commissioner,
Remand, Opportunity of hearing, Sub Divisional
Officer/U.P. Ziladhikari.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 1002036 of
2003
 Hanif
Khan
&
Ors
Vs.
Additional
Commissioner Lucknow & Ors.
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
08.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
10 All. Hanif Khan & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
1075
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Govind Saran Nigam, Hari Om Rana, Mohd.
Aslam Khan
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C.,Vijay Kumar Pandey Yogendra Nath
Yadav

Case law cited:
Chaturgun & Ors Vs State of U.P. & Ors (2005)
27 RCR (Civil) 247, Hari Ram Vs Collector
(2004)2 RD 360, A.M.U., Aligarh Vs M.A. Khan
(2000) 4 AWC 2993 (SC); AIR (2000) Supreme
Court 2783, S.L.Gupta Vs A.D.Gupta (2003) AIR
SCW 7089-referred to.

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

1. Heard Shri M.A. Khan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd.
Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Shri Shadab Khan,
learned Advocate in Case:- WRIT-C
No.1002036 OF 2003, 1001836 OF 2003,
1001637 OF 2003, 1001638 OF 2003 and
Shri Hari Om Rana, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Case:-WRIT-C No.1002037
OF 2003 and 1002065 OF 2003 and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents-State.

2. This bunch of writ petitions is
being decided by means of a common
judgment
and
order
treating
Writ-C
No.1002036 of 2003 to be leading writ
petition and the judgment and order passed
therein, shall be equally applicable to all
the connected writ petitions.
3. The petitioners have prayed for
issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari, quashing the orders dated
31.3.2003
and
16.8.1996
passed
by
respondent nos.1 and 2 contained in
Annexure Nos.1 and 4 respectively.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that
in realisation of certain outstanding amount
of loan/ land revenue against Sri Amir
Singh, son of Maya Ram and others, their
land including Plot No.61 area 12.50 acres
situate at village Shri Nagar, Pargna Palia,
old Tahsil Nighasan (present Tahsil Palia),
District Lakhimpur Kheri was put to
auction and sale on 18.9.1961 and the
petitioner no.1 and the predecessor of the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 and predecessor of
the petitioner nos.3 to 5, Sri Hasnu, son of
Dildar
Khan
were
declared
auction
purchasers and the said auction was
confirmed by Sub Divisional Officer on
1.1.1963.

 The land under auction was
subject to diluvial and alluvial action and at
the time of the aforesaid auction dated
18.9.1961, a part of the land was under the
bed of river Sharda, as such the possession
of the said land was not delivered
immediately thereafter nor sale certificate
was issued. However, in the year 1995, the
land re-appeared from the bed of river and
thereafter sale certificate was issued to the
petitioners and their predecessor and
mutation was also affected in the name of
the petitioners deposited land revenue also
which was assessed against their khata.

 During the pendency of the
revision before respondent no.1 Mahboob
Khan, the father of the petitioner nos.3 to 5
expired and they have succeeded his rights
in the land in question. For the aforesaid
mutation
orders
when
the
parwana
amaldaramad was sent to Tahsildar, he
himself gave a report to U.P. Ziladhikari,
Nighasan,
District
Lakhimpur
Kheri
expressing his doubt over the proceedings
mainly on the ground that the file of the
auction proceedings could not be traced out
by him and on the ground of his suspicion
in the absence of the concerned file, he
recommended that parwana amaldaramad
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be cancelled and on the same day dated
16.8.1996, U.P. Ziladhikari, Nighasan
ordered cancellation of entries made in the
record.

 The order of Pargna Adhikari,
Palia, the report of Tahsildar, Nighasan and
also the order of the Sub Divisional
Officer, Nighasan dated 16.8.1996 are
behind the back of the petitioners. Before
making the aforesaid record, Nighasan and
before passing the aforesaid order, Sub
Divisional Officer, Nighasan never made
any enquiries from the petitioners or any
other auction purchaser nor the Sub
Divisional Officer, Nighasan called upon
the petitioners or any other auction
purchaser to explain the circumstances
under which Tahsildar, Nighasan was
making recommendation for cancellation of
the entries. The entire proceedings are
contrary to the principles of natural justice
and are totally surreptitious.

 While looking into the matter,
U.P. Ziladhikari, Nighasan, on 15.5.1996
had directed the then Rajaswa Lipik, Sri
Dev Narain Mishra to produce the
concerned file relating to the aforesaid
auction with the clear warning that on
failure of producing the concerned files, the
matter would be reported to the Collector.
However, nothing appears to have been
done inspite of the said direction.

 Having come to know about the
aforesaid order dated 16.8.1996, petitioners
filed a revision under Section 219, Land
Revenue Act., Revisions No.1304/1995-96
before respondent no.1 who vide his order
dated 19.8.2000 allowed the same and set
aside the order and directed the petitioners
to move restoration application before the
learned court below and issued directions
to the trial court to dispose of the said
restoration application treating the same
within limitation on merits.

 The petitioners, in compliance of
the aforesaid directions of the respondent
no.1 applied for restoration and setting
aside the order dated 16.8.1996 passed by
U.P. Ziladhikari/ Pargna Adhikari, Palia.
During the pendency of the said, Pargna
Adhikari, Nighasan directed Sri Dev
Narain
Mishra,
the
Clerk
concerned
through Tahsildar, Nighasan to produce the
files relating to the said auction with the
warning to initiate criminal proceedings on
his failure to comply the order. However,
inspite of the aforesaid direction, Pargna
Adhikari, Nighasan even without waiting
for the compliance, rejected the restoration
application on the same ground that the
original file was not traceable.

 Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
aforesaid order of U.P. Ziladhikari/ Pargna
Adhikari, Palia passed on his surmises and
conjectures and purely on his suspicion,
petitioners filed a revision under Section219,
Land
Revenue
Act
before
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow. However, the same has been
rejected by the respondent no.1 on the
ground that the dates in the sale certificates
have been changed which makes it
suspicious and further in the proceedings
under Section-33/39, Land Revenue Act
such point cannot be raised. He rejected the
revision by his order dated 31.3.2003
without entering into the merits of the case
and without making any categorical finding
as to whether there has been any auction
proceedings with respect to the land in
question or not. He has also not confirmed
the order of the trial Court on the ground
that the file of the case was not traceable as
such the proceedings are suspicious but has
rejected the revision on the ground that the
10 All. Hanif Khan & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
1077
order of the trial Court is quite delayed
hence no intereference was needed on his
behalf.

 None of the Courts Below have
come to the categorical finding that the
auction proceedings had not taken place, as
such the sale certificate was wrongly
issued. Rather they have expressed their
suspicion on the ground that the auction
proceedings had been held in the year 1961
and the sale certificate was issued in the
year 1995 which cannot be a ground for its
cancellation
particularly
in
the
circumstances when none of the Courts
Below ever ordered production of file
relating to the issue of sale certificate nor
any report has been obtained from the
record room or from the lower staff as to
whether any such file was ever existed or
not.

 The sale certificates have been
cancelled by the respondent no.2 in
purported exercise under Section-33/39,
Land Revenue Act, as such the observation
of the respondent no.1 that the point raised
in the revision against the order of the
respondent no.2 cannot be take into
consideration in the proceedings under
Sction 33/29, Land Revenue Act, is
contrary to the entire proceedings and on
this ground alone the revision deserves to
be allowed.
 During the pendency of the
revision before the respondent no.1 the
operation of the order of admitted the
revision and summoning the lower courts
records. The petitioners are in possession
over the land in question, Khasra Plot
No.1/3M situate in the village Shri Nagar,
Pargna & Tahsil, Palia, District Lakhimpur
Kheri, hence the interest of justice requires
that the operation of the order dated
31.3.2003 be kept suspended.
5. Shri M.A. Khan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the impugned order has been
passed
without
notice
and
giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
reference of which has been drawn from
the order of the Commissioner dated
19.8.2000.

6. Learned Senior Advocate next
submitted that the orders impugned are
wholly illegal and without jurisdiction after
confirmation of sale as in the auction
proceeding Sub Divisional Magistrate has
no power to cancel it under Rule 285-A of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 and it is the
Commissioner who can cancel the auction
sale.

 Learned Senior Advocate, in
support of his submissions, relied upon a
judgment
rendered
in
the
case
of
Chaturgun and others v. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2005(27) RCR
(Civil) 247.

7. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel accepted that the orders
impugned have been passed without notice
and opportunity of hearing, so that the
matter
should
be
remanded
to
the
competent Authority to pass an appropriate
order.

8. Learned Standing Counsel, on
the point of want of jurisdiction, submitted
that the Rules provide that against the
cancellation of confirmation of auction
sale, the power vests in the Commissioner.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and gone through the
material available on record as well as
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case-law cited by the learned Senior
Advocate.

10. To resolve the controversy
involved in the present writ petition, Rule
285-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 is quoted
hereinbelow:

 "285-A.
Every
sale
under
Sections 284 and 286 shall be made either
by the Collector in person or by an
Assistant Collector specially appointed by
him in this behalf. No such sale shall take
place on a Sunday or other gazetted
holiday proclamation under Rule 282 was
issued."

11. Learned counsel also relied
upon judgment rendered in the case of
Chaturgun (supra) wherein the following
has been held in paragraphs 8 and 9:

 "8. Accordingly, it is held that
whenever an entry in the revenue record is
to be cancelled and substituted particularly
when the entry is continuing for more than
a year, notice must be given to the party in
whose favour entry stands even if prima
facie, authority/ court concerned (i.e.
Deputy Collector/ Sub Divisional Officer in
most of the cases) is of the opinion that the
entry is result of fake order or fraud.
Similarly if name of an asami pattedar is to
be expunged from the revenue records on
the ground of expiry of period of patta or
any other ground, notice must be given to
him before expunging his name. In a recent
authority in Hari Ram v. Collector,
2004(2) RD 360, it has been held by this
Court that apart from suit for ejectment
under Section 34 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act
but it can be done only after providing
opportunity of hearing to the pattedar/
lessee. However if entry is expunged or any
other order is passed without hearing the
person affected then he is entitled to file an
application for post decisional hearing and
recall of the order before the Court/
authority which passed the ex parte order.
If such an application is filed then the
Court/ authority concerned shall hear the
applicant and in case it comes to the
conclusion that the earlier order is not
correct the the said order shall be set aside.
In such situation it is not necessary to first
set aside the order and then hear the party
concerned, Alongwith such application
such evidence must be filed which the party
considers necessary for his case. It has
been held by the Supreme Court in A.M.U.,
Aligarh v. M.A. Khan, 2000(4) AWC 2993
(SC); AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2783, that
a person who complains about denial of
opportunity of hearing must show that in
case opportunity had been provided to him,
what cause he would have shown or what
defence he would have taken. (Similar view
has been taken in S.L. Gupta v. A.D.
Gupta, 2003 AIR SCW 7089 (para29) and
Canara Bank (supra)]. Against ex parte
orders of expunging of names it is not
proper to file revision and appeal etc.
directly. However, if revision, appeal etc. is
directly
filed
then
revisional
court/
appellate court may also instead of
deciding the revision or appeal on merit
may grant leave to the affected party to
apply for post decisional hearing and
recall of order before the trial court/
authority.
The
revisional/
appellate
authority may also decide the matter on
merit after providing opportunity of post
decisional hearing (i.e. opportunity to show
that earlier entry was not fake) as
mentioned in the judgment of Supreme
Court in Canara Bank (supra).

 9. Revenue, authorities/ courts
must remember that a party can in some
10 All. Hanif Khan & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
1079
cases successfully show that entry of his
name in the revenue record is correct and
not fake or based upon fake order. This
question can be decided only and only after
hearing the party concerned and likely to
be affected."

12. Perusal of the above-extracted
Rule 285-A of the Act shows that the
auction can be conducted either by the
Collector in person or by an Assistant
Collector, specially appointed by him in
this behalf. It is also evident from perusal
of the judgment in the case of Chaturgun
(supra) that Revenue authorities/ courts
must remember that a party can in some
cases successfully show that entry of his
name in the revenue record is correct and
not fake or based upon fake order. This
question can be decided only after hearing
the party concerned and likely to be
affected.

 In the present case, none of the
Courts Below have come to the categoric
finding that the auction proceedings had
not taken place, as such the sale certificate
was wrongly issued. Rather they have
expressed their suspicion on the ground
that the auction proceedings had been held
in the year 1961 and the sale certificate was
issued in the year 1995 which cannot be a
ground for its cancellation particularly in
the circumstances when none of the Courts
Below ever ordered production of file
relating to the issue of sale certificate nor
any report has been obtained from the
record room or from the lower staff as to
whether any such file was ever existed or
not.
The
Commissioner
rejected
the
revision by his order dated 31.3.2003
without entering into the merits of the case
and without making any categorical finding
as to whether there has been any auction
proceedings with respect to the land in
question or not. He has also not confirmed
the order of the trial Court on the ground
that the file of the case was not traceable as
such the proceedings are suspicious but has
rejected the revision on the ground that the
order of the trial Court is quite delayed
hence no interference was needed on his
behalf.

13. It is not in dispute that the
impugned order has been passed by the trial
Court
without
notice
and
giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
reference of which has been drawn from
the order of the Commissioner dated
19.8.2000 as also admitted by learned
Standing Counsel.

14. It is the first principle of natural
justice that no adverse order shall be passed
against a person without hearing him even
in administrative matters which affect the
rights of persons. Grant of opportunity of
hearing
in
administrative
matters
is
comparatively a recent doctrine. As far as
judicial matters are concerned since the
time when Courts were established it has
been the most essential ingredient of
procedural law that no order shall be passed
without
hearing
parties
concerned.
Removal and substitution of entry in
revenue records under Section 34 of Land
Revenue Act or any other provision is a
judicial matter making it all the more
necessary to provide opportunity of hearing
to the party concerned.

15. In the above view of the matter,
this Court is of the opinion that the
Commissioner should have remanded the
matter to the concerned Court and gave
specific direction to decide the matter while
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
But, in this matter, neither any direction has
been given nor order of the trial Court has
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been confirmed. Under the Rule 285-A, it
is the Commissioner who can cancel the
auction sale.
16. The orders of the Courts Below
have
been
passed
without
giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
therefore the orders being passed in
violation of principles of natural justice are
liable to be set aside.

17. Whenever an entry in the
revenue record is to be cancelled and
substituted particularly when the entry is
continuing for more than a year, notice
must be given to the party in whose favour
entry stands even if prima facie, authority/
court concerned (i.e. Deputy Collector/ Sub
Divisional Officer in most of the cases) is
of the opinion that the entry is result of fake
order or fraud. Similarly if name of an
asami pattedar is to be expunged from the
revenue records on the ground of expiry of
period of patta or any other ground, notice
must be given to him before expunging his
name.

In the present case, no endeavour
was made to call for the record in regard to
auction proceedings and its confirmation
from the record room and only on the
presumption, assumption has been drawn
otherwise. Therefore, the orders passed by
the trial Court as well as revisional Court
are not sustainable in law and are liable to
be set aside.

18. Considering in totalities of
facts and circumstances of the case, orders
dated 31.3.2003 and 16.8.1996 passed by
respondent nos.1 and 2 contained as
Annexure nos.1 and 4 to the present writ
petition respectively are hereby quashed.

19. Accordingly, the matter is
remanded to the trial Court to pass a fresh
order after calling for the record from the
record
room
in
regard
to
auction
proceeding made in favour of the petitioner
expeditiously.

20. In the result, the writ petitions
succeed and are allowed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1080
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 3000065 of 2007

Puttul Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.L.Mishra, Dilip Pandey, Dr. V.K. Singh,
Gopesh Tripathi, Jyoti Sikka, Umesh Pratap
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
The issue involved in this case Whether the
Appellate Authority failed to comply with the
remand directions of the High Court, and
whether its finding that the sale-deed dated
09.07.1976 was not bona fide and that the
inherited land breached the ceiling limit under
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding
Act, 1960, were based on surmises and
conjectures
without
considering
relevant
evidence.
Headnotes
Civil matter-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holding Act,1960-Section 5(6),29-A
sale deed executed after the cut-off dated
of 24 January,1971, does not ipso facto
become void-To ignore it, the authorities
must establish through cogent evidence
that the transaction was not bona fide and