# Himanshu Dhar Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1664
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000084 of 1993
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/himanshu-dhar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-54189
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,526 of 89,678. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39526 for what follows._

1664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perspective. The appellate authority, while passing the impugned order, has taken into account
these material irregularities.

16. It is well settled that where an authority fails to comply with mandatory procedural
requirements, the resultant order stands vitiated in law. The appellate authority, therefore, cannot be
said to have committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

17. The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. This Court does
not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the competent appellate authority unless the same
are shown to be perverse or manifestly illegal. No such infirmity has been demonstrated by the
petitioner-State.

18. In view of the settled legal principles emerging from the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondents, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned appellate
order dated 07.09.1998.

19. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1664
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 3000084 of 1993

Himanshu Dhar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the two impugned orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities can be said to be without
jurisdiction in light of the transitory provisions introduced by the U.P. Amending Act No. 18 of
1973 and U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 and
Whether the impugned orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities are otherwise erroneous in law.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - U.P. Amending Act No.18 of 1973 - U.P.
Amending Act No.20 of 1976 - ss.9(2), 10(2), 19, 31, 38-B - Re-determination of surplus land -
Transitory provisions
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1665
The petitioner contended that since the determination of surplus land had been finally concluded
on 24.07.1964 and that order was not challenged by the State Authorities, there could have been
no re-determination of surplus land against the petitioner, especially when there was no
addition to the land held by him - It was further contended that the findings of the ceiling
authorities had attained finality on 24.07.1964 and would operate as res judicata, and therefore
the authorities were not justified in re-agitating the same issue in the fresh proceedings initiated
by notice dated 15.05.1976 - The impact of the amendments, particularly the transitory
provisions, was that where final determination had already been made before the
commencement of the Amending Act, the proceedings were to be continued and concluded in
accordance with the Principal Act - Thus, it was contended that since final determination had
already been made by order dated 24.07.1964, even the subsequent proceedings pursuant to
notice dated 15.05.1976 were required to be governed by the Principal Act by virtue of Section
19(2) of the Amending Act - It was urged that this aspect had not been considered by the
authorities, thereby vitiating the impugned orders.
Held: By the two Amending Acts, i.e. U.P. Amending Act No.18 of 1973 and U.P. Amending Act
No.20 of 1976, there was a complete change in the scheme of the Act and the amended
provisions were made applicable retrospectively - The Amending Act of 1976 came into force
w.e.f. 10.10.1975 and required the Authorities to re-determine the surplus land within two years
therefrom - It was in furtherance thereof that a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on
15.05.1976 after the Amending Act had come into force - It is not a case where any pending
proceedings had abated in light of the transitory provisions; rather, it is a case of fresh
determination made in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 10(2) post the U.P.
Amending Act No.20 of 1976 - Section 38-B, inserted by the Amending Act, provides that any
finding or decision given before commencement shall not operate as a bar for retrial of such
proceeding or issue in accordance with the Act as amended from time to time - Taking a holistic
view of the Act of 1960 along with the amendments of 1973 and 1976, a composite scheme has
been brought into play by the Legislature - The amended provisions were made applicable
retrospectively w.e.f. 10.10.1975 and were insulated from challenge - The transitory provisions
under Section 19 are confined to proceedings referable to Section 14 and Chapter III and IV and
have no bearing on determination of surplus land - The Court held that the orders passed by the
two Ceiling Authorities cannot be said to be bad for want of jurisdiction or as being contrary to
the dictum of the Apex Court in Devendra Nath and Arvind Kumar - The Court further held that
the petitioner was attempting to indirectly assail proceedings which had already attained finality
by raising issues of transitory provisions which had no role to play - Accordingly, the judgment
and order dated 27.06.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the judgment dated
11.06.1993 passed by the Appellate Authority were confirmed. (Paras 51, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 74,
75, 76, 77) (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge, Basti (1999) 1 SCC 71;
Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. (2016) 9 SCC 221;
Darshan Prasad v. Civil Judge-II (1992 Supp (2) SCC 87);
Viroj Kunwar v. II ADJ (1996) 1 SCC 570;
Rajendra Prasad Singh v. 4th ADJ 1980 SCC OnLine All 402;
Gurdeep Singh v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/2265/2019;
Ram Kali Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3483;
Kamla Kant and another v. Third Additional District Judge, 2013 SCC OnLine All 2228.

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960;
U.P. Amending Act No. 18 of 1973;
1666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976.
List of Keyword
Ceiling proceedings; Surplus land; Re-determination; Transitory provision; Retrospective operation; Section
38-B; Res judicata; Jurisdiction; Fresh notice; Legislative scheme.
CASE ARISING FROM
rom judgment dated 27.06.1986 of Prescribed Authority and order dated 11.06.1993 of Appellate Authority
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: D.C. Mukherjee, Amit Mukerjee, Ananttika Singh, Gopesh Tripathi, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Alok Kumar Mishra.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the impugned judgment and
order dated 27.06.1986, passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960', in short), which has been
affirmed in Appeal by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 11.06.1993.

2. Though, this is the first writ petition filed by the petitioner, however, the orders impugned
herein, have been passed in the fourth round of litigation between the petitioner and the State
Authorities.

3. In this view of the matter, it will be appropriate at this stage to briefly take a glance as to
how the dispute between the parties have unfolded. For the sake of convenience, the Court has
referred to the parties as they were originally impleaded at the time of filing of the writ petition.

4. With the advent of the Act of 1960, a notice was issued to the petitioner, namely, Himanshu
Dhar Singh, under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 on 28.07.1962. The petitioner filed his
objections to the said notice and the Prescribed Authority after considering the same discharged the
notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960, by means of its order dated 24.07.1964.
Significantly, this order was not assailed by the State Authorities and with this order the first round
of litigation came to an end.

5. A fresh litigation emerged when the State Authorities issued a fresh notice on 15.06.1976,
under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960. This notice was again contested by the petitioner on the
ground that the land which was recorded in the name of his wife and adult sons and daughters were
clubbed with the land of the petitioner, which was legally not permissible, as the adult sons and
daughters were holding the land in their own individual rights in terms of a decree passed in a civil
suit decided by the District Judge, Raebareli on 28.08.1954.
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1667

6. This issue was considered by the Prescribed Authority, who by means of its order dated
15.11.1978 excluded the land held by the sons and daughters of the petitioner but continued to keep
the land of the petitioner's wife, clubbed with that of the petitioner.

7. This order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.11.1978 was assailed by the petitioner in an
appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 1960, which was registered as Appeal No.16/1978. In the
appeal, the petitioner agitated his ground that the land belonging to his wife, in her individual
capacity, could not be clubbed with the land of the petitioner. It was also urged that the Prescribed
Authority has failed to consider that the son of the petitioner was a co-tenant and erroneously held
him not to be a co-tenant. Another ground raised was that the petitioner could not exercise his
choice in terms of Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 regarding the land he desired to retain with
himself.

8. This Appeal No.16/1978 was decided by the Appellate Authority on 20.03.1979 and the
matter was remanded with the observations to re-determine the surplus land after determining the
land whether it was irrigated or non-irrigated and also permitted the petitioner to furnish his choice
which was directed to be considered by the Prescribed Authority. With this judgment of the
Appellate Authority dated 20.03.1979, the second round of litigation came to an end.

9. After remand, vide order dated 20.03.1979 as aforesaid, the third round of litigation
commenced and the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment dated 23.04.1982 dismissed the
objections of the petitioner and held that the petitioner had given a vague statement relating to the
land in village Dadu Tikari and Salon to be retained and the rest may be considered for the
purposes of determination of surplus land. The Prescribed Authority found that the said choice had
not been made at all, by the petitioner, as it was vague and as far as the claim relating to the land of
his wife to be separated was concerned, it did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority.

10. This order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23.04.1982 was again assailed in appeal by
the petitioner before the Appellate Authority which was registered as Appeal No.3/1982.

11. The Appellate Authority once again considering the three issues raised before him noticed
that the Prescribed Authority had not considered the Plots bearing No.353, 432, 433, 498 and 503
of Village Dadu Tikari as non-irrigated which was required to be done in terms of the earlier order
of remand dated 20.03.1979 passed in Appeal No.16/1978, hence, the matter required a remand
again.

12. The Appellate Authority further found that the plea taken by the petitioner that he was
entitled to have additional 2 hectares of land on account of his major son Akhileshwari Pratap
Singh could not be raised as the said plea had already been turned down in the Rent Appeal
No.16/1978 and the said findings at that point of time had not been assailed any further coupled
with the fact that the Rent Appeal No.16/1978 was allowed only for a limited purpose of permitting
the petitioner to furnish his choice and re-determination of surplus land treating the land of plots
number (as mentioned aforesaid) as non-irrigated land.
1668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The Appellate Authority also considered that even though the petitioner had given a vague
statement regarding his choice but since the matter was being remanded, accordingly, another
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to furnish his choice regarding the land he wanted to
retain and by passing this order dated 16.09.1983, it allowed the Appeal No.3/1982 and remitted
the matter to the Prescribed Authority for a limited purpose and this brought to an end, the third
round of litigation.

14. Once again the matter was before the Prescribed Authority, who taking note of the
directions of the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order dated 27.06.1986 wherein 7.3 hectares of
land was permitted to be retained, rest was declared surplus and it also noticed that despite specific
liberty having been granted by the Appellate Authority, yet the petitioner did not give any clear
choice rather a fresh plea was raised that there were proceedings pending under Section 161 of the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950', in short) relating to
exchange of land and the land which was proposed to be exchanged, as put forward by the
daughters of the petitioner, may be the land which may be retained by the petitioner and it may be
treated to be his choice. This did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority noticing that the
proceedings under Section 161 of the Act of 1950 were different and they had no bearing on the
proceedings under the Act of 1960, hence, by means of the judgment dated 27.06.1986, the
contention was turned down.

15. Once again in this fourth round of litigation, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal
No.25/85-86 and this appeal also came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 11.06.1993
whereby the findings of the Prescribed Authority dated 27.06.1986 were affirmed. By this appellate
order, the fourth round of litigation before the Ceiling Authorities came to an end. At this stage for
the first time the two orders dated 27.06.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the judgment
and order dated 11.06.1993 passed by the Appellate Authority were challenged in the instant writ
petition.

16. It may also be noticed that the instant writ petition was filed on 27.10.1993 and while
entertaining the petition, the operation of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the
Appellate Authority were stayed with a further observation that the possession of the petitioner
shall not be disturbed. However, after almost two decades, an application for amendment was
moved by the petitioner incorporating new grounds and certain new facts. This application for
amendment of the writ petition was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by means of the
order dated 25.05.2023.

17. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the parties have advanced their submissions based on
the amended writ petition. It will also be relevant to notice that during pendency of the writ
petition, the original petitioner expired and his son, namely, Akhileshwari Pratap Singh, on the
basis of a Will executed by his father, was substituted in his place.

18. Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Counsel ably assisted by Shri Shantanu Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that originally the petitioner was served with a
notice in the year 1962 which was contested by the original-petitioner and considering the law as it
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1669
existed at that point of time, the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 24.07.1964
discharged the notice.

19. It was urged that again on 15.05.1976 another notice was issued to the petitioner proposing
to declare 91.48 hectares of land as surplus land under the Act of 1960. It was contended by the
learned Senior Counsel that once by means of the order dated 24.07.1964, the notice under Section
10(2) of the Act of 1960 had been discharged, it was now not open for the State Authorities to have
re-initiated the proceedings. Even if at all, the said proceedings were to be initiated, but then it had
to be considered in accordance with the Principal Act, as it stood prior to the amendments brought
in the Act, in the year 1973 and 1976 respectively.

20. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while elaborating his submissions specifically
pointed out that the Principal Act of 1960 was drastically amended vide U.P. Amending Act No.18
of 1973, whereby major changes were brought in the definition clause and more specifically in
respect of the word 'family' (which is relevant for the instant petition) and also that the ceiling limit
had been drastically reduced from 40 acres to 7.3 hectares. It was also pointed out that Section 29
was introduced in the Act of 1960 for the first time by the aforesaid Amending Act and it also
brought in a transitory provision in shape of Section 19. The impact of the aforesaid amendment
and more particularly the transitory provision brought in would be that in case if any final
determination of surplus land had been made in respect of any tenure holder before the
commencement of the Amending Act then it was to be continued and concluded in accordance with
the provisions of the Principal Act. It was thus contended that as in the instant case, since, the final
determination had already been done in terms of the order dated 24.07.1964 then even in context
with the subsequent notice dated 15.05.1976, the proceedings were to be concluded in terms of the
Principal Act giving the benefit of the transitory provision as provided under Section 19(2) of the
Amending Act and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by either of the Authorities,
which has vitiated the two judgments under challenge before this Court.

21. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further raised his submission, one notch up,
by urging that since the determination of surplus land had been finally concluded on 24.07.1964
and that order was not challenged by the State Authorities, hence, there could have been no redetermination of surplus land against the petitioner especially when there was no addition to the
land held by the petitioner. It was also submitted that only contingency in which such further
determination could be made, would be in a situation, where the provisions of Section 29 of the Act
of 1960 were attracted and as already stated that there was no addition to the land in the hands of
the petitioner, hence, the said Section did not empower the Authority to re-determine the land and
as such the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities which are without jurisdiction and
cannot be sustained in law.

22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further urged that by the amendments introduced
to the Principal Act in the year 1976, Section 38-B was inserted in the Act. It was to be read with
the transitory provision i.e. Section 31(3). It was urged that since there was no addition or change
in the circumstances nor any land was added either by purchase, succession or by prescription that
is to say by adverse possession, hence, the petitioner was covered by the transitory provision and
the provisions of the Principal Act of 1960 would be applicable.
1670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Taking his submissions forward, learned Senior Counsel urged that the provisions of
Section 38-B were interpreted by the Apex Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge, Basti
and another, 1999 (1) SCC 71 and as per the learned Senior Counsel, the Apex Court held that
any finding or decision which was given by any forum prior to the commencement of the Section in
respect of a matter governed by the Ceiling Act, then it would operate as res judicata provided the
findings given in the ceiling proceedings had not attained finality.

24. It is urged that applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case, it would be
clear that the findings of the ceiling authorities in the instant case had attained finality on
24.07.1964, hence, they would operate as res judicata and the ceiling authorities were not justified
in re-agitating the same issue in the fresh round of litigation commenced on issuance of the notice
dated 15.05.1976.

25. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the transitory provision as introduced in the
Amending Act of 1976 and Section 38-B should be construed in a harmonious manner so that it
achieves its purpose and can be taken to a logical conclusion. In case if the Section 31(3) i.e.
transitory provision is construed in a narrow manner then it would result in complete chaos as that
would permit the ceiling authorities to unsettle everything, at their discretion, to the detriment of
the tenure holders moreso when the matters may have been settled finally under the Ceiling Act.

26. It is urged that with the aforesaid object, the provisions of the Amending Act of 1976 may
be read down to make it prospective in operation, as permitting it to have a retrospective operation,
would lead to the said provisions being declared unconstitutional.

27. It was also urged that a right which is vested in a party cannot be divested by making a
provision operational, retrospectively. It has been submitted that since the issues involved are
purely legal, hence, they can be considered by this Court in this writ petition even though it may
not have been cogently raised before the Ceiling Authorities. Since, the impugned orders are per-se,
bad in the eyes of law, in light of the aforesaid submissions, hence, they are liable to be quashed
and set aside.

28. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the following
decisions:-

(a) Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge, Basti and others, (1999) 1 SCC 71;

(b) Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 9 SCC 221;

(c) Ram Kali Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3483;

(d) Kamla Kant and another v. Third Additional District Judge, 2013 SCC OnLine
All 2228.
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1671

29. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey along with Shri L.M. Khare, learned standing counsel for the
State-respondents has vehemently controverted the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner.

30. It was urged that the entire arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner are fallacious. It was pointed out that first and foremost the transitory provision of
Section 19(2) of the Amending Act No.18 of 1973 is not applicable in the instant case. Hence, the
said provisions cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.

31. Elaborating his submissions, Shri Pandey has urged that on a bare perusal of Section 19 of
the Amending Act No.18 of 1973, it would reveal that it specifically holds that it would be
applicable only in respect of the proceedings which were pending at the time of enforcement of the
Act of 1960. It further reveals that all the proceedings which at the time of enforcement whether
under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 or 30 of the Principal Act, if pending would stand abated. The
Prescribed Authority is required to initiate fresh proceedings for determination of ceiling area under
the provisions of the Amended Act by issuing notice under Section 9(2) of the Act. This fresh
determination of the surplus land is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act of
1960 as amended by the Amending Act No.18 of 1973.

32. Shri Pandey has further pointed out that by introducing the Amending Act No.18 of 1973,
the Principal Act was radically amended and the same came into effect on 08.06.1973. The
provision as introduced by the Amending Act No.18 of 1973 received the Presidential Assent.
Earlier under the Principal Act, there was a concept of ceiling limit of 40 acres of fair quality land
with addition of 8 acres for each family member exceeding 5 subject to a maximum of 24 acres.
However, with the introduction of Amending Act No.18 of 1973 which came into force on
08.06.1973. The Act required the surplus land to be determined by taking into consideration
irritated land. The ceiling limit was reduced from 40 acres to 7.3 hectares of irrigated land with
permissible addition upto 6 hectares depending on the family size.

33. It was further pointed out by Shri Pandey that Section 19(2) of the Amending Act No.18 of
1973 has limited applicability and that too in respect of proceedings under Section 14 or those
which fall under Chapter III or Chapter IV of the Principal Act which are required to be continued
and are to be concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act. It was submitted
that the Legislature by using the words 'be continued and concluded' clearly indicates that the
provision has been made applicable only to such proceedings which were pending at the time of
commencement of the Amending Act and only such proceedings as referred to i.e. proceedings
under Section 14, Chapter III & IV of the Principal Act could be taken to be its logical conclusion
in terms of the Principal Act. However, there is no indication that the said provisions would be
applicable to the proceedings which had already been decided. It has also been urged that the
aforesaid provisions also has an overriding applicability as the provision clearly clarifies that even
if the proceedings have been concluded under the old Act, the new inserted provisions of Section
9(2) and Section 13-A would still be applicable.

34. Shri Pandey has referred to several provisions of the Act both prior to the amendment as
well as the amended provisions to demonstrate the changes brought in by the amendments. He
1672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted that Section 14 of the Act of 1960 does not relate to determination of ceiling area rather
it only gives a guideline as to how the surplus land is to be taken over and it cannot have any
applicability insofar as the determination of surplus land is concerned.

 35. It has further been urged that with a further amendment introduced in the year 1976, it
made re-determination of the surplus land mandatory in accordance with the Principal Act of 1960
as amended by the Amending Act No.20 of 1976 within a limit of two years, commencing from 10
October, 1975. In this regard, he has specifically referred to Section 31(3) of the Amending Act
No.20 of 1976 to submit that the Legislature in clear terms expected that all surplus land which was
determined prior to the 10 October, 1975 be re-determined and it is in this context that the
subsequent notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to the petitioner on
15.05.1976 i.e. after the Act was amended by the Amending Act No.20 of 1976.

36. Shri Pandey further urged that by the Amending Act No.20 of 1976, Section 38-B was also
introduced which clearly indicated that any finding to the decision, order or decree rendered before
the commencement of the Amending Act, made by any Court or Tribunal or any Authority in
respect of the ceiling matter shall bar the re-trial or consideration, notwithstanding the principles of
res judicata.

37. It has further been submitted that the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner relating to Section 13-A are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is urged that
in the instant case, fresh proceedings were initiated under Section 9(2)/10(2) of the Act of 1960
which came into effect after the amendment was introduced vide Amending Act No.20 of 1976
also taking into consideration Section 31(3). The instant proceedings were not for correction of
records as provided under Section 13-A, hence, the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel,
which is referable to Section 13-A of the Act of 1960 cannot be pressed into service in the instant
case, as it would have no applicability.

38. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner has changed the entire complexion of the
petition by raising issues which were never raised before the ceiling authorities. It has further been
urged that the initial case set up by the petitioner was only confined to the issue of land recorded in
the name of the wife, sons and daughters of the petitioner, being clubbed with the land of the
petitioner and the issue relating to choice as per Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 and the issue
relating to the land being considered as irrigated or unirrigated.

39. It has further been urged that this issue had been decided more specifically in the third
round of litigation between the parties vide judgment dated 16.09.1983 passed by the Appellate
Authority in Appeal No.3/1982, whereby the Appellate Authority had crystallized and narrowed
the controversy only on two points that is to say (i) the Plots bearing No.353, 432, 433, 498 and
503 were to be considered as unirrigated and for the aforesaid purpose, the matter was remanded
(ii) Further indulgence was granted to the petitioner to give his choice regarding the land he wanted
to retain, and all other issues had been turned down.

40. This judgment dated 16.09.1983 was never assailed by the petitioner and thereafter he
succumbed to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority and in the fourth round also, no such
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1673
issues were raised which are now being raised before this Court. Moreover, even the issue of
choice did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority for the reason
that the manner in which the choice was expressed by the petitioner was in context with the certain
proceedings for exchange initiated by the daughters of the petitioner which had no bearing with the
ceiling proceedings. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner now cannot turn around and raise
an issue which was never the subject matter before the ceiling authority and by an indirect method
the petitioner is trying to enlarge the scope of adjudication which is not permissible also noticing
the fact that since 1976 more than 4 decades have gone by and the petitioner has been successful in
prolonging the litigation and it is for the same very reason that in the petition instituted in the year
1993 an amendment was introduced in the year 2022 by which new facts and grounds have been
raised which apparently in the given fact situation, have no applicability and the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.

41. In support of his submissions, Shri Pandey has relied upon the following decisions:-

(a) Darshan Prasad and others v. Civil Judge-II, Gorakhpur and others, 1992 Suppl.
2 SCC 87;

(b) Viroj Kunwar and others v. II Additional District Judge and others, (1996) 1
SCC 570;

(c) Rajendra Prasad Singh v. 4th Additional District Judge, 1980 SCC OnLine All
402;

(d) Gurdeep Singh v. State of U.P. and others, MANU/UP/2265/2019.

42. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material
on record including the written submissions submitted by the contesting parties.

43. In light of the submissions advanced by the parties, certain undisputed facts which emerge
from the record are:-

(a) The original petitioner late Himanshu Dhar Singh was served with a notice under
Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960. The petitioner had furnished his objections and the Prescribed
Authority, Raebareli by means of the order dated 24.07.1964 had discharged the notice.

(b) A fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.1976 which was again contested
by the petitioner on the ground that the land recorded in the name of his wife, sons and daughters
was clubbed with the land of the petitioner despite the wife, daughters and sons being recorded
owners in their own individual capacity.

(c) It is also not disputed that the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 15.11.1978
excluded the land recorded in the names of sons and daughters of the petitioner and thereafter redetermined the surplus land by considering the land recorded in the name of the petitioner's wife as
land available with the petitioner.
1674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(d) It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner had assailed the order dated 15.11.1978
by filing Appeal No.16/1978 which was allowed on 20.03.1979 by remanding the matter to the
Prescribed Authority to re-determine the surplus land by treating certain plots as unirrigated and
also directed the Prescribed Authority to take the preference of the petitioner in respect of the land
he proposed to retain with himself.

(e) It is also undisputed that the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of the remand order
dated 20.03.1979, re-determined the matter and rejected the objection holding that no specific
choice was given by the petitioner rather a vague statement was given that except for the land in
Village Dadu Tikari and Salon, rest can be considered for being declared surplus.

(f) It is also undisputed that this order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23.04.1982 was
assailed by the petitioner in Appeal No.3/1982 which was allowed by the Appellate Authority on
16.09.1983, wherein the Appellate Authority remanded the matter directing the Prescribed
Authority to consider the Plots No.353, 432, 433, 498 and 503 as unirrigated and the petitioner was
permitted to submit his choice for the land which he wished to retain.

(g) It is also an undisputed fact that this judgment dated 16.09.1983 was never assailed by
the petitioner any further and the matter went back to the Prescribed Authority for the fourth time
and now the Prescribed Authority accepted the directions of the Appellate Authority and
considering Plots No.353, 432, 433, 498 and 503 as unirrigated land, permitted the petitioner to
retain 7.3 hectares of land and rest was declared surplus.

(h) Effectively, it was only the issue of choice which remained to be considered by the
Prescribed Authority, but the same was turned down. It is also an undisputed fact that this order of
the Prescribed Authority was again assailed in an appeal, which came to be dismissed on
11.06.1993 and the orders dated 27.06.1986 or 11.06.1993 are now under challenge in this writ
petition.

44. In the backdrop of the undisputed facts noted above, the two issues which arise for
consideration are:-

(I) Whether the two impugned orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities can be said to be
without jurisdiction in light of the transitory provisions introduced by the U.P. Amending Act No.
18 of 1973 and U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976.

(ii) Whether the impugned orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities are otherwise
erroneous in law?

45. In order to examine the first issue as noticed above, it will be appropriate to consider the
certain provisions of the Amending Act No. 18 of 1973 and the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 by
which the U.P. Act of 1960 was drastically amended.

46. The U.P. Act of 1960 came to be amended by the U.P. Amending Act No. 18 of 1973 and
the provisions of the said Amending Act No. 18 of 1973 are being noticed hereinafter:-
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1675
The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings, (Amendment) Act, 1972)

(U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973)

Substitution of new sections for sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of U.P. Act I of 1961

'3 (7). 'family' in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or her-self and his wife or her
husband, as the case may be (other than judicially separated wife or husband),minor sons daughters
(other than married daughters);

3(17). 'tenure-holder' means a person who is the holder of a holding, but does not include-

(a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder:

(b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder.

Imposition of ceiling

-------******-----*****------*****-----

Imposition of ceiling

5. (1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure- holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate,
throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to land held by the following classes of
persons, namely:-

(a) the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority or a
Government Company or a Corporation;

(b) a University;

(c) a post-graduate college;

(d) a banking company or a co-operative bank or a co-operative land development bank;

(e) the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act,
1952.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5) and (6), the ceiling area for purposes
of sub-section (1) shall be-
1676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) In the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30
hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), plus two additional
hectares of irrigated land or such additional which together with the land held by him aggregates to
two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold
less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional
land;

(b) in the case of a tenure-holder having family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares
of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the
members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves or who hold less
than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land
which together with the land held by such adult son aggregates to two hectares, subject to a
maximum of six hectares of such additional land.

Explanation-The expression 'adult son' in clauses (a) and (b) includes an adult son who is
dead and has left surviving behind him minor sons or minor daughters (other than married
daughters) who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold land less than two hectares of
irrigated land;

(c) in the case of a tenure-holder being a degree college imparting education in
agriculture, 20 hectares of irrigated land;

(d) in the case of a tenure-holder being an intermediate college imparting education in
agriculture, 12 hectares of irrigated land;

(e), in the case of any other tenure-holder, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land

Explanation-Any transfer or partition of land which is liable to be ignored under sub-
sections (6), and (7) shall be ignored also-

(p) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure holder is himself a
tenure- holder within the meaning of clause (a);

(q), for purposes of service of notice under section 9.

-------******-----*****------*****-----

Amendment of section 9

4. Section 9 of the principal Act, shall be re-numbered sub-section (1). shall be inserted,
namely,-

"9. (2) As soon as may be after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, the prescribed authority shail, by like general
notice, call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on
2 All. Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1677
the enforcement of the said Act, to submit to him within 30 days of publication of such notice, a
statement referred to in sub-section (1).