# Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-30
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000082 of 1997
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-52396
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Nonirrigated land - Non-irrigated land does
not come under the ambit of the ceiling -
Determination of irrigated land, Section 4A - Held - Finding recorded by the
respondents to the effect that the entire
land of Village Charan Gahiya is irrigated
is erroneous, as the same has not been
recorded in accordance with the statutory
determination of irrigated land provided
under Section 4-A of the Act of 1960, read
with Rule 3 of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Rule, 1961.
Gatas situated in Village Charan Gahiya
were unirrigated land as per Form CH-41
and 45 in the revenue record. (Para 23)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
very perfunctory manner having been
influenced with the presence of Kanhaiya
Lal in proceeding under Section 9A(2) of
UPCH Act, culminated by order dated
30.7.1970 passed by the Consolidation
Officer. However, he has miserably failed
to discuss the relating evidence to prove the
presence of Kanhaiya Lal in the proceeding
in question and his knowledge qua order
dated
30.7.1970,
who
has
allegedly
restrained himself from assailing the said
order during his life time. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation should have
accorded
conscious
discussion
qua
knowledge of Kanhaiya Lal in the light of
available documentary evidence on the
record with respect to which both the
parties are at variance. Thus, instant writ
petition succeeds and is partly allowed.
The order dated 27.3.2023 passed by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
is
quashed. The revision filed on behalf of
Subhash Kumar and others is restored to its
original number and parties are relegated
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation to get the revision decided
de novo in the light of the observation as
made in the order of the date.

9. It is expected that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation shall accord
conscious appraisal to the documents on
record and pass a speaking and reasoned
order in accordance with law after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned without granting unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties
expeditiously, preferably, within a period
of three months from the date of
appearance of the parties along with
certified copy of the order of the date, who
are hereby directed to appear before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation on
24.9.2024.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 596
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000082 of 1997

Krishna Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
U.K. Srivastava, Anuj Kudesia, Umesh
Kumar Srivastava, Vikas Kumar Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Nonirrigated land - Non-irrigated land does
not come under the ambit of the ceiling -
Determination of irrigated land, Section 4A - Held - Finding recorded by the
respondents to the effect that the entire
land of Village Charan Gahiya is irrigated
is erroneous, as the same has not been
recorded in accordance with the statutory
determination of irrigated land provided
under Section 4-A of the Act of 1960, read
with Rule 3 of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Rule, 1961.
Gatas situated in Village Charan Gahiya
were unirrigated land as per Form CH-41
and 45 in the revenue record. (Para 23)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramadhar Singh VS Prescribed Authority &
ors. [1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 702]

2. Ram Chandra VS St. of U.P. & ors.2020 (4)
ADJ 535 (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)
9 All. Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
597
IA No.8 of 2024

1. Heard.

2. In view of order passed on
22.8.2024, the present application for
impleadment
has
been
filed
for
impleadment
of
District
Magistrate,
Balrampur as District Gonda has been
bifurcated and new district Balrampur has
been created.

3. In view of facts narrated above, the
application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
is permitted to carry out necessary
incorporation during course of the day.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. In the year 1979, notice under Sub
Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, 1960 has
been issued during pendency of case a fire
had taken place in Tahsil Balrampur and
entire record was destroyed. In the year 1981,
again, notice under Sub Section (2) of
Section 10 of the Act, 1960 was issued in the
name of Late Surya Narain Singh even
though he already died on 8.12.1977. Again,
separate notices were issued under Sub
Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 1960.

3. Notices were issued for the land as
follows :-

(a) Plot No.352 area 7.06 acres
and Plot No.370 area 9.98 acres situated at
Village Bhadua Shanker Nagar, Pargana
and Tahsil Tulsipur District Gonda.

(b) Plot No.283 area 11.67 acres
and Plot No.415 area 5.00 acres situated at
Village Charan Gahiya, Pargana and Tahsil
Tulsipur District Gonda.

(c) At village Kapia Khalsa
Tappa Aikhin, Pargana and Tahsil Naugarh
District Basti which
were in the name of Smt. Jayanti Kunwar.

4. The petitioners filed separate
objections, Annexure-1 (dated 7.4.1983)
and Annexure-2 (dated 6.7.1983), which
are as under :-

(a) Plot No.352 area 7.06 acres
and Plot No.370 area 8.98 acres situated at
Village Bhadua Shanker Nagar, Pargana
and Tahsil Tulsipur District Gonda the
entire land was bhumidhari land of Smt.
Jayanti Kunwar and was already transferred
in year 1959 by executing sale deed in
favour of Ram Chandra and Paras Nath for
valuable consideration and the mutation
order was passed on 06.09.1974 by
Consolidation
Officer
and
the
amaldaramad of this mutation order was
not made due to mistake on the part of
consolidation staff.

(b) Plot No.283 area 11.67 acres
and Plot No.415 area 5.00 acres situated at
Village Charan Gahiya Pargana and Tahsil
Tulsipur District Gonda were wrongly
shown as irrigated, while this land was
unirrigated and this land was also not
situated in effective command area of any
lift irrigation canal or a private irrigation
work and due to which, only one crop was
yielded from such land.

(c) at village Kapia Khalsa Tappa
Aikhin, Pargana and Tahsil Naugarh
District Basti, which were in the name of
Smt. Jayanti Kunwar who was owner of the
land having inherited the same from her
maternal
grandfather
and
which
she
transferred entire land in favour of different
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons by way of registered sale deed after
obtaining valuable sale consideration from
the transferees (sale deeds were executed
on
07.04.1971,
08.06.1971
and
26.06.1971).

5. In response to objections, the State
of Uttar Pradesh filed its written statement.
Registered sale deed in respect of Plot
No.352 and Plot No.370 situated at Village
Bhadua Shanker Nagar, Pargana and Tahsil
Tulsipur District Gonda were executed in
year 1959 in favour of Ram Chandra and
Paras Nath.

6. Impugned order dated 31.12.1991
passed by the respondent No.3 Chief
Revenue officer, Faizabad (Annexure-8 to
the writ petition), whereby the authority
framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether the entries of C.L.H.
form 3A, 3B and 3C issued to the tenure
holders are correctly entered ?

(ii) Whether the sale deed in the
respect of plot No.352 and Plot No.370
situated at Village Bhadua Shanker Nagar,
Pargana and Tahsil Tulsipur District Gonda
were executed in favour of Ram Chandra
and Paras Nath were admissible in law, and
if so, its effect ?

(iii) Whether the entire land of
Charan Gahiya was unirrigated ?

(iv) Whether the sale deeds
executed
by
Smt.
Jayanti
Kunwar
(petitioner No.2) widow of original ceiling
tenure holder Late Surya Narain Singh in
respect of the land of Village Kapia Khalsa
on 07.04.1971, 08.06.1971 and 26.06.1971
were legally admissible, if so, its effect ?

6. The issue Nos.1 and 3 were interconnected and they were decided together.
The prescribed authority has decided two
issues in favour of the petitioners and no
evidence was adduced on behalf of the state
of Uttar Pradesh to establish the fact that
the land of village Charan Gahiya was
within the command area of canal of
Bhawanpur Bandh and the statement of
Lekhpal also recorded and no document
was produced by him.

7. With regard to issue No.2, the plot
No.352 and Plot No.370 situated at Village
Bhadua Shanker Nagar, Pargana and Tahsil
Tulsipur District Gonda were executed in
favour of Ram Chandra and Paras Nath
during
the
year
1959
for
valuable
consideration and these persons were
neither family members of the tenure
holder nor they were otherwise related to
them and the finding recorded the name of
transferees was not entered over the land
but the authority did not consider that the
mutation order was passed on 06.09.1974
by
Consolidation
Officer
and
the
amaldaramad of this mutation order was
not made due to mistake on the part of
consolidation staff.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the issue No.4 was
decided very casually and non-speaking
and ignored the sale deeds were executed
on 07.04.1971, 08.06.1971 and 26.06.1971
in respect of the land of Village Kapia
Khalsa Tappa Aikhin Pargana and Tahsil
Naugarh District Basti merely on the
ground that they were executed after the
appointed date of 24.1.1971 and prescribed
authority did not correctly apply its mind
that they were executed for adequate
consideration and in good faith for the
immediate benefit of the tenure holder and
also the provisions of sub section (6) of
Section 5 of the Act of 1961.

9. After the prescribed authority
rejected
petitioners'
objections
and
9 All. Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
599
determined their ceiling area by treating
and clubbing the entire land covered by the
aforesaid sale deeds situated in village
Bhadua Shanker Nagar as well as situated
in village Kapia Khalsa with the land of the
tenure holder and thereby declared an area
of 28.13-7 acres of land as surplus area.

10. Against the order of the
prescribed authority, appeal was filed
before
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Faizabad.

11. While deciding the issue Nos.1
and 3 to the effect that entire land of
Village Charan Gahiya was unirrigated said
by prescribed authority and no appeal was
preferred by the State against aforesaid
finding, but appellate court, while deciding
the appeal, had no jurisdiction to hold that
the land of Village Charan Gahiya was
irrigated land and the finding of appellate
court is manifestly perverse and contrary to
law.

12. About issue No.2, Gata Nos.352
and 370 Village Bhadua Shankar Nagar,
Gonda and in the year 1959 sale deeds
were executed in favour of Ram Chandra
and Paras Nath and statement was also
given by them before prescribed authority
and the mutation order was passed on
06.09.1974 which was not made due to
mistake on the part of consolidation staff.

13. About issue No.4, Village Kapia
Khalsa land, sale deed executed by the
Petitioner No.2 for adequate consideration
and in good faith for immediate benefit of
the tenure holder and the purpose for
agriculture the land was far from her house
that's why petitioner No.2 sold her land and
the name of purchaser of the land was also
recorded in the consolidation record.
Reference may be made on paragraph-63 of
the writ petition, as stated by the
petitioners' counsel.

14. In evidences of Ram Chandra and
Phoolmati W/o Paras Nath, they have
stated that they purchased the land after
paying a valuable consideration and they
have possession over it.

15. The instant supplementary affidavit
bringing on record the form CH-41, CH-23,
CH-11, CH-45 Khatauni of Aadhar year,
1359 Fasli and 1356 Fasli, whose certified
copies have been obtained by the petitioners
from the revenue record of the office of
District Collector, Balrampur on 18.07.2024,
whereby it is evident that Gata No.352 and
Gata No.370 situated at village Bhadua
Shankar Nagar, Pargana and Tehsil- Tulsipur,
District- Gonda, have been renumbered
during consolidation proceedings which have
been sold in year 1959, whose old numbers
were 2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2267 and
2268, meaning thereby, the properties are the
same as per Form- 23.

16. In respect of Gata No. 283 and
Gata No. 415 situated at village Charan
Gahiya, Pargana and Tehsil - Tulsipur,
District- Gonda, is unirrigated land as per
Form CH- 41 and 45 in the revenue record
but the revenue authorities have treated the
same as irrigated land.

17.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
placed
reliance
upon
the
following judgments :-

(i)
Ramadhar
Singh
Vs.
Prescribed Authority & others [1994
Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 702].
Relevant paragraph-2 is being quoted
below :-

"2. "It has to be seen under what
provision of the Act can the validity of the
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sale executed prior to January 24, 1971,
the appointed day, be gone into? Subsection (6) of Section 5 of the said Act says
that in January, 1971, which but for the
transfer would have been declared as
surplus land under the Act shall be ignored
and not taken into account. The proviso (b)
thereto, inter alia, provides that a transfer
proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed
authority to be in good faith and for
adequate consideration and an irrevocable
instrument, not being of benami transaction
or for immediate or deferred benefit for the
tenureholder or other members of the
family, is outside the scope fo the aforesaid
sub-section.
Thereafter
explanation
II
provides that the burden of proving that a
case falls within clause (b) of the proviso
shall rest with the party claiming its
benefit. Apparently, it is under this
provision of law that the validity of the sake
deed dated April 22, 1969 was put to test.
The authorities under the Act took the view
that the sale deed was not genuine because
no consideration appears to have passed
before the Sub-Registrar and that it was a
transfer between father and son raising a
dust of suspicion. Otherwise it was not
disputed on fact that the sale had been
effected by means of a registered deed in
which the passing of consideration was
mentioned as a recital. The existence of the
sale deed being not disputed and it having
taken place, as said before, on February
24, 1969, prior to the appointed day that is
January 24, 1971, the inquiry regarding
the validity of the sale deed under subsection (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 tooo proceeded on that basis. The
effort of the appellant to have it declared
that the authorities had no jurisdiction to in
validate the sale under sub-section (6) of
Section 5 when read with Explanation II to
sub-section (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."

(ii) Ram Chandra Vs. State of
U.P. & others [2020 (4) ADJ 535 (LB)].
Relevant paragraphs-31 to 41 are being
quoted below :-

"31. In the instant case the
petitioner got the right to possession by
virtue of succession to the six plots of land
in village Magrapur on death of his father
in September 1979 only. However, in the
extract of Khatauni considered by the
Prescribed Authority of the year is 1407 to
1412 Fasli, the term of cultivatory
possession was mentioned as since before
1373 Fasli.

32.
Moreover,
the
Appellate
Authority rightly interpreted section 29 of
the Act and came to a conclusion that
determination of ceiling area is to be done
with reference to the date the petitioner
was recorded as tenure holder i.e. with
effect from September 1979 and not with
reference to 08.06.1973, the date of the
enforcement of the Amendment Act.
9 All. Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
601

33. The language of Section 5 (1)
"on and from the date of commencement"
of the amendment act i.e. 08.06.1973,
ceiling area has to be determined taking
into account all the lands held by such a
person throughout the State, in any
capacity,
whatsoever.
The
date
of
08.06.1973 is relevant date only for the
purpose of defining "ceiling area", it is not
relevant for the purpose of determining the
area of the holding of a tenure holder. If
the petitioner's argument is to be believed it
would mean that only if a person has land
in excess of "ceiling area" on 08.06.1973
then alone he shall come under the clutches
of the Act. This would do violence to the
very language of the Act, and the purpose
for which it was enacted. The language of
Section 5 (1) of the Act starts with the
phrase "on and from" Commencement of
the Act.

34. The date of commencement of
the Amendment Act is 8th June 1973,
hence, the computation of a holding of a
tenure holder would depend on either the
date of commencement of the Act, or from
the commencement of the Act to any other
point of time in the future. The operation of
the Act is a continuing process. It does not
stop merely on the date of 8th June 1973,
when the Amendment Act came into
operation but from the date of such
commencement
the
determination
of
surplus land will be done as and when a
tenure holder comes into possession and
holds land the aggregate of which is more
than the ceiling area permissible under the
Act.

35. It is clear from the Long Title
and Preamble of the Act that the object of
the act is to impose ceiling on land
holdings in Uttar Pradesh. The Act does
not take away any rights of the tenure
holder but only restricts the area he can
hold to allow for a more equitable
distribution of a scarce resource among the
States' entire population in the interest of
the
community,
to
ensure
increased
agricultural production and to provide land
for landless agricultural labourers and for
other public purposes as best to subserve
the common good. The argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that since
he did not hold surplus land on the date of
commencement of the Amendment Act, any
land which came into his possession by
succession thereafter should be ignored, is
rejected as misconceived.

36. The next contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
under section Under section 3 (7) the
definition of family has been given and in
relation to a tenure holder it means himself
or herself and the spouse, other than a
judicially separated spouse, minor son and
minor daughters, other than married
daughters.
Under
Sub-section
(3)
of
Section 5 for Computation of Ceiling Area
in case of a tenure holder the number of
family members has to be done taking into
account. In case the family members are
not more than five, only 7.30 hectares of
irrigated land is permissible. However, if
the family members are more than five,
then 2 additional hectares of land is
admissible subject to a maximum of 6
hectares of such additional land.

37. For each adult son the tenure
holder is entitled to 2 hectares of additional
land, subject to a maximum of 4 hectares of
additional land. Provided that such adult
sons are not independent tenure holders in
their own right having more than 2
hectares
of
irrigated
land
in
their
possession.

38. A careful perusal of the
aforesaid provision clearly shows that if
the member in the family exceeds five, the
tenure holder is entitled for additional land
provided that none of such member is a
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tenure holder in his/her own right.
Similarly, it also provides that even if there
are no adult sons, but if the strength of the
members of the family is more than five,
then the tenure holder is entitled to
additional land of 2 hectares for each
member of the family subject to a maximum
of 6 hectares of additional land. It is not in
dispute in the present case that the strength
of family members of the petitioner was
Eight at the time when notice was issued to
him on 02.11.2000. The petitioner brought
on record the High School pass Certificates
of his three daughters and three sons.
However, the Prescribed Authority and the
Appellate Authority refused to grant benefit
of additional land for each member of the
family in addition to the five members as
the petitioner did not produce relevant
extract of the Family Register and on
08.06.1973 none of the petitioner's children
was born. The logic applied by the
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Authority is incomprehensible. According
to
the
respondents,
the
date
of
determination of family members has been
taken as 8th June 1973, but the date of
determination of ceiling area has been
taken as the date when the Prescribed
Authority was deciding the case.

39. In my considered opinion
even
though
the
petitioner's
family
consisted of only two members i.e. himself
and his wife on 8th June 1973, at the time
of issuance of notice under Section 9, on
02.11.2000, all of his six children had been
born. Three of his daughters were married
but there were at least three sons who were
living with him. None of them has been
shown to be an independent tenure holder
having more than 2 hectares of land by the
State
respondents,
in
their
Counter
affidavit. For the purpose of determination
of ceiling area the petitioner was entitled to
2 additional hectares for at least one of his
sons namely Shyam Srivastava who was
major at the time.

40. Though this Court is not
convinced with the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner regarding the
applicability
of
the
cut-off
date
of
08.06.1973 for determining ceiling area on
the basis of Section 29 of the Act and holds
that the petitioner was independent tenure
holder of eight plots of land ad-measuring
8.546 hectares in villages Magrapur and
Baddupur in Tehsil Shahbad District
Hardoi which in irrigated terms came out
to be 7.968 hectares; the failure of the
learned Court below to take into account
the number of members of the petitioner's
family while determining the permissible
limit of land to be left with the petitioner
cannot be countenanced.

41. The Writ Petition is allowed.
The orders of the Respondent nos.2 & 3 are
set aside as they failed to take into account
the petitioner right to additional land under
Section 5(3) b of the Act. The petitioner
shall be entitled to all of his land in the
eight plots mentioned in CLH 3 in the two
villages concerned."

18. On the other hand, Sri Rajiv
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel placed reliance upon
Section-5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960,
which is being quoted as under :-

"5. Imposition of Ceiling.- (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 through-out Uttar Pradesh,
any land in excess of the ceiling area
applicable to him."
9 All. Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
603

19. In respect of Section 5, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
submitted that minor sons, daughters and
wife is admissible in the definition of
'family'. This submission is in respect of
issue No.4 of the issues framed by the
prescribed
authority
with
regard
to
imposition of ceiling.

20. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the
petitioners
submitted
that
after
the
amendment on 8.6.1973, the land sold prior
to 1973 shall not be added in the ceiling
proceedings.

21. After having heard the rival
submission of learned counsel for the
parties, I perused the material on record as
well as law report cited by learned counsel
for the petitioners.

22. On overall consideration, it is
evident that the respondents have treated
the land of Village Bhadua Shanker Nagar,
Pargana and Tehsil Tulsipur, District
Gonda covered by the registered sale deeds
executed during the year 1959 in favour of
Ram Chandra and Paras Nath, much prior
to the appointed dated of 24.1.1971 to
continue to belong to Smt. Jayanti Kunwar
in spite of the fact that the aforesaid
registered sale deeds were implemented
and in pursuance of which, the names of
the transferees were ordered to be mutated
during consolidation operations under the
orders
of
the
Consolidation
Officer,
amaldaramad of which was not made in the
revenue records and by doing this, the
respondents have committed an error,
which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

23. On perusal of certified copies of
CH-23, CH-41, CH-11 and CH-45, it is
evident that Gata No.352 and 370 situated
at Village Bhadua Shanker Nagar, Pargana
and Tehsil Tulsipur, District Gonda, which
have been sold in the year 1959, whose old
numbers were 2258, 2259, 2260, 2261,
2267 and 2268, meaning thereby, the
properties are the same as per form-23 of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
During the consolidation proceedings, the
old Gata Nos.2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2267
and 2268 have been renumbered as Gata
No.352 and 370, which also finds mention
in sale deeds contained in Annexures-6 and
7. On perusal of the documents referred
hereinabove, it is transpired that the land in
question is unirrigated land. The prescribed
authority as well as the Additional
Commissioner have not considered the
same and held that these are different
numbers and land is irrigated, in fact, the
land
is
unirrigated,
which
clearly
demonstrates the findings of the prescribed
authority
as
well
as
Additional
Commissioner to be erroneous in nature.

The finding recorded by the
respondents to the effect that the entire land
of Village Charan Gahiya, Pargana and
Tehsil Tulsipur, District Gonda is irrigated,
is erroneous in law and the same has not
been recorded in accordance with the
statutory determination of irrigated land
provided under Section 4-A of the Act of
1961 read with Rule 3 of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1961. In fact, the non-irrigated land
does not come under the ambit of ceiling.

24. The argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioners is also
supported by the judgments relied upon by
him as they are totally applicable in the
present case.

25. In view of the foregoing
discussion and the judgments relied upon,
the Court is of the opinion that the
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned orders are not sustainable in law,
thus, the impugned orders dated 21.4.1997
and 31.12.1991, passed by respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are hereby set aside. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

26. However, the matter is remanded
back to the Additional Commissioner to
decide the issue afresh in accordance with
law.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 604
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 978 of 2024

M/s R.D. Enterprises ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Srijan Pandey, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Krishna Agarawal, Sri Parv
Agarwal

(A) Tax Law - Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 - Section 83 - Provisional
attachment to protect revenue in certain
cases - Power to order a provisional
attachment of the property of the taxable
person
including
a
bank
account
is
draconian in nature and the conditions
which are prescribed by the statute for a
valid exercise of the power must be
strictly fulfilled - Formation of an opinion
by the Commissioner under Section 83(1)
must be based on tangible material
bearing on the necessity of ordering a
provisional attachment for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government
revenue.(Para -6)
Provisional attachment of bank account by
Department without fresh reasons - following
expiry of the prior attachment - Previous
attachment dated February 16, 2023, expired
after
one
year
-
Petitioner
successfully
challenged it - leading to its removal by order
dated May 6, 2024 - new attachment was
imposed on May 16, 2024, without any new
reasons. (Paras - 2, 3, 4)

HELD: - Provisional attachment order dated May
16, 2024 quashed and set aside. Reattachment
without fresh reasons violates Section 83 of the Act
and is arbitrary. Concerned bank directed to remove
the attachment and allow petitioner access to the
account. (Para - 9,10)

Petition allowed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:
1. Radha Krishan Industries Vs St. of H.P. &
ors., (2021) 6 SCC 771
2. Amazonite Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I., 2020
(36) G.S.T.L. 184 (Cal.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
respondents.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioner is aggrieved by the provisional
attachment order dated May 16, 2024 passed
by the respondent authorities under Section
83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. It is to be noted that the same bank
account had been attached vide order dated
February 16, 2023. After expiry of the