# Puttul Kumari v. The State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1080
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 3000065 of 2007
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/puttul-kumari-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-52620
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

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
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1081
was a device to evade the imposition of
the
ceiling
limit-Mere
inadequate
consideration or the transfer being in
favour of a son -in -law , without
substantive evidence , is a finding based
on surmise and cannot be sustainedProceedings under section 29, initiated
after
a
previous
round
of
ceiling
proceedings had attained finality, require
proper ascertainment of the land available
with the tenureholder at the time of the
subsequent acquisition-
The appellate
authority must consider the nature of the
inherited land and the family members to
accurately determine if the ceiling limit
was breached.

Held
The court observed that the appellate authority
failed to comply with the remand order by not
appropriatetly considering two issues-The sale
deed-In the first round , land was declared
surplus on 08.04.1975-Thereafter Ram Rakhan
sold some land -The court noted that since the
remaining land after the first round was within
the ceiling limit, the subsequent sale-deed could
not per se be bad under section 5 of the Act-
The appellate authority had ignored the saledeed merely because it was after the cut off
date (24 jan.1971) and to a son-in-lw for an
allegedly inadequate price (Rs. 10,000)- The
court found this to be a finding based on
surmise as not material evidence was cited to
prove a lack of bona fides or intent to avoid the
ceiling limit-The second ceiling proceeding was
initiated under section 29, after Ram Rakhan
inherited a half share from Smt. Chandrika DeviThe appellate authority did not consider the
crucial temporal sequence: that the sale-deed
was executed before the inheritance-It also
failed to determine the inherited area, its nature
(irrigated/unirrigated) and family members for
proper ascertainment of whetehr the total
holding breached the ceiling limit after the
inheritance-Consequently the impugned order
was set aside and the case was again remitted
to the Appellate authority to pass a fresh order
within six months-Petition allowed.(Para 22 to
36) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding
Act,1960
List of Keywords
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding
Act,1960, Ceiling proceedings, Remand Order,
Bona Fide Transfer, Sale-Deed, Cut-off date,
Surplus land, Inheritance, Evidence, Surmise,
Res-Judicata.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 3000065 of
2007
 Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P.
Through The Collector Rae Bareli & 2 Ors
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
10.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
P.L. Mishra, Dilip Pandey, Dr. V.K. Singh,
Gopesh Tripathi, Jyoti Sikka Umesh Pratap Singh
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C.,
Case law cited:
State of U.P. Vs Kailash Nath & Ors (2023) SCC
OnLine All 1829, Brijendra Singh Vs State of
U.P.,(1981) 1 SCC 597, Ajai Pratap Singh & Ors
Vs State of U.P. & Ors [WRIT-C No.3000164 of
1998],2025: AHC-LKO: 31419}-referred to.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,947 of 54,868. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39947 for what follows._

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
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1081
was a device to evade the imposition of
the
ceiling
limit-Mere
inadequate
consideration or the transfer being in
favour of a son -in -law , without
substantive evidence , is a finding based
on surmise and cannot be sustainedProceedings under section 29, initiated
after
a
previous
round
of
ceiling
proceedings had attained finality, require
proper ascertainment of the land available
with the tenureholder at the time of the
subsequent acquisition-
The appellate
authority must consider the nature of the
inherited land and the family members to
accurately determine if the ceiling limit
was breached.

Held
The court observed that the appellate authority
failed to comply with the remand order by not
appropriatetly considering two issues-The sale
deed-In the first round , land was declared
surplus on 08.04.1975-Thereafter Ram Rakhan
sold some land -The court noted that since the
remaining land after the first round was within
the ceiling limit, the subsequent sale-deed could
not per se be bad under section 5 of the Act-
The appellate authority had ignored the saledeed merely because it was after the cut off
date (24 jan.1971) and to a son-in-lw for an
allegedly inadequate price (Rs. 10,000)- The
court found this to be a finding based on
surmise as not material evidence was cited to
prove a lack of bona fides or intent to avoid the
ceiling limit-The second ceiling proceeding was
initiated under section 29, after Ram Rakhan
inherited a half share from Smt. Chandrika DeviThe appellate authority did not consider the
crucial temporal sequence: that the sale-deed
was executed before the inheritance-It also
failed to determine the inherited area, its nature
(irrigated/unirrigated) and family members for
proper ascertainment of whetehr the total
holding breached the ceiling limit after the
inheritance-Consequently the impugned order
was set aside and the case was again remitted
to the Appellate authority to pass a fresh order
within six months-Petition allowed.(Para 22 to
36) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding
Act,1960
List of Keywords
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding
Act,1960, Ceiling proceedings, Remand Order,
Bona Fide Transfer, Sale-Deed, Cut-off date,
Surplus land, Inheritance, Evidence, Surmise,
Res-Judicata.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 3000065 of
2007
 Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P.
Through The Collector Rae Bareli & 2 Ors
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
10.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
P.L. Mishra, Dilip Pandey, Dr. V.K. Singh,
Gopesh Tripathi, Jyoti Sikka Umesh Pratap Singh
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C.,
Case law cited:
State of U.P. Vs Kailash Nath & Ors (2023) SCC
OnLine All 1829, Brijendra Singh Vs State of
U.P.,(1981) 1 SCC 597, Ajai Pratap Singh & Ors
Vs State of U.P. & Ors [WRIT-C No.3000164 of
1998],2025: AHC-LKO: 31419}-referred to.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Gopesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel for the State.

2. Under challenge is the order
dated 17.05.2007, passed by the respondent
No.2, whereby it has affirmed the judgment
and order dated 10.02.1984 passed by the
Prescribed Authority in proceedings under
the provisions of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1960 (for
short, the Act of 1960').

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has urged that this is the second
round of litigation. In the first round of
litigation, the original tenure holder, who
was the father of the petitioner, namely,
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ram Rakhan was served with a notice
under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960. The
objections had been filed by the father of
the petitioner including on the fact that
earlier when the ceiling proceedings
culminated in a final order, an area of 1
bigha, 4.5 biswa was held to be surplus
vide order dated 14.08.1974, which was
though assailed in an appeal, but the appeal
was dismissed on 08.04.1975. Thereafter,
the surplus land was taken by the State.

4. Once, the aforesaid ceiling
proceedings had attained finality, Ram
Rakhan, the father of the petitioner
transferred some land in favour of Bansi
Dhar by means of a sale-deed dated
09.07.1976. Be that as it may, once again a
notice was issued to the father of the
petitioner, namely, Ram Rakhan in terms of
Section 29 of the Act of 1960 declaring
certain land of the father of the petitioner to
be declared surplus. The premise of the
proceedings initiated under Section 29 of
the Act of 1960 was that he had received
certain land as inheritance from one Smt.
Chandrika Devi coupled with the fact that
he had transferred some land by means of
the sale-deed dated 09.07.1976 and the
sale-deed being after the cut off date of
24th January, 1971 was suspicious, hence,
the said land inherited from Smt. Chandrika
Devi and one sold out by the sale-deed in
the 1976 was clubbed in the hands of Ram
Rakhan and once again the land was sought
to be declared surplus.

5. This came to be contested by
Ram Rakhan with specific objections that
once the ceiling proceedings in the first
round had attained finality in the year 1975
then whatever land remained with the
father of the petitioner Ram Rakhan was
within the ceiling limit and from that a
limited portion of land was sold by Ram
Rakhan by a sale-deed dated 09.07.1976.
Accordingly, the said land once sold could
not have been treated to be in the hands of
Ram Rakhan for being added nor the said
sale-deed dated 09.07.1976 could be hit by
the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of
1960.

6. It was also objected that the area
which the father of the petitioner had
inherited from Smt. Chandrika Devi that if
reduced by the area sold on 09.07.1976
then it was well within the ceiling limit.
Consequently, the proceedings were bad in
the eyes of law.

7. This stand of the father of the
petitioner did not find favour with the
Prescribed Authority nor it was accepted by
the appellate Court. During pendency of the
appeal, the father of the petitioner had died
and thereafter it was taken forward by the
present petitioner being the daughter.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the
present petitioner assailed the order of the
Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate
Authority by filing writ petition before this
Court bearing Writ Petition No.1774
(Ceiling) of 1986.

9. The said writ petition came to be
allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court by means of the judgment and order
dated 04.01.1989. This Court in its
judgment noticed that the contentions
raised by the petitioner had not been
appropriately
considered
both
the
Prescribed Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority, hence, the writ
petition was allowed and the matter was
remitted to the appellate Authority for
decision afresh taking into consideration
the points which were raised by the
petitioner.
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1083
10. Thereafter, the matter once
again was considered by the Appellate
Authority, who by means of the impugned
order dated 17.05.2007 dismissed the
appeal, which has now been assailed in the
instant petition.

11. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel
for the petitioner has vehemently urged that
first and foremost the Appellate Authority
was bound to consider the appeal afresh in
terms of remand order passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No.1774 (Ceiling) of 1986.
The contentions which were raised before
the High Court and as per the judgment of
the High Court was required to be noticed
by the Appellate Authority, who was under
an obligation to consider the same in
accordance
with
law.
However,
the
Appellate Authority did not notice the same
and in a vague manner dismissed the appeal
which is apparently an erroneous exercise
of jurisdiction.

12. It is further urged that the
Appellate Authority was bound by the
directions of the High Court and having
failed to consider the same, the Appellate
Authority has committed an error.

13. The second limb of submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that it was not disputed that in the first
round of litigation which had attained
finality vide judgment and order dated
08.04.1975 and the land of Ram Rakhan
was declared surplus, the remaining land in
the hands of Ram Rakhan was as per the
State within the ceiling limit. Once the land
available with Ram Rakhan in the year
1976 was within the ceiling limit then he
was well within his right to sell some part
of the property and the sale-deed dated
09.07.1976 could not be treated to be hit by
virtue of Section 5 of the Act of 1960.
14. This being the position, the said
land could not have been clubbed with the
holding of Ram Rakhan and even if so, the
fact would remain that if the said sale-deed
of the year 1976 was not treated to be valid,
yet the same land would come back in the
hands of Ram Rakhan it would bring the
position as it was available with Ram
Rakhan on 08.04.1975 that is within the
ceiling limit.

15. It is also urged that as far as the
inheritance of the share of Smt. Chandrika
Devi is concerned, in that it was required to
be considered as to whether it would breach
the ceiling limit and this issue was also
considered by the High Court and it
remitted the matter to consider this aspect
and without considering the evidence on
record, the Appellate Authority once again
committed the same mistake as done in its
order dated 21.11.1985.

16. It was further submitted that if
the impugned order dated 17.05.2007 is
seen, it would indicate that the reasoning
given by the Appellate Authority is
completely
based
on
surmises
and
conjectures and there was no material on
record to substantiate the same. Any
finding recorded which is not based on any
evidence or material, is patently perverse
and in the aforesaid circumstances, the
order impugned dated 17.05.2007 cannot
be sustained and for all the aforesaid
reasons, the same deserves to be set aside,
after allowing the instant writ petition.

17. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Singh,
learned standing counsel for the State,
while
controverting
the
aforesaid
submissions, has urged that the judgment
and order passed by the High Court dated
04.01.1989
was
considered
by
the
Appellate Authority, who duly noted the
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contentions and the issue which was
required to be considered in terms of the
order of the High Court and it returned a
finding that the sale-deed executed by Ram
Rakhan on 09.07.1976 was in favour of his
son-in-law. The said sale-deed was for a
consideration of Rs.10,000/- and the said
consideration was not adequate and in such
circumstances, it appeared that the saledeed had been executed only to avoid the
ceiling limit.

18. It is further urged that Ram
Rakhan had inherited half share from Smt.
Chandrika Devi and in view thereof, the
said land having breached the ceiling limit,
the authorities in terms of Section 29 of the
Act of 1960 were well within their right to
issue the notice and this aspect was also
considered by the Appellate Authority. The
finding that the land available with Ram
Rakhan had breached the ceiling limit and
that the sale-deed was nothing but an
attempt to avoid imposition of ceiling was
not bonafide, hence, these being findings of
fact and there being no contrary evidence,
consequently, such findings cannot be
disturbed in exercise of powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.

19. The Court has heard learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the
material available on record.

20.
Having
considered
the
aforesaid submissions of the respective
parties and also from perusal of the record,
certain undisputed facts that emerge are :-

 (i) that the original tenure holder
Ram Rakhan (father of the present
petitioner) was served with a notice under
Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960. In the
earlier round, some land was found to be
beyond the prescribed ceiling limit and it
was transferred and mutated in the name of
the State. This order of the Prescribed
Authority
dated
14.08.1974
declaring
surplus was challenged in an appeal which
came to be dismissed on 08.04.1985 and
thus, the proceedings rested there that is to
say that the land which was found surplus
had been taken by the State and the
remaining would vest exclusively with the
father of the present petitioner, namely,
Ram Rakhan.

 (ii) It is also not disputed that the
after the ceiling proceedings had attained
finality on 08.04.1975, it is only thereafter
that Ram Rakhan transferred some part of
his land in favour of Bansi Dhar by means
of a sale-deed dated 09.07.1976.

 (iii) Once again a notice under
Section 29 of the Act of 1960 was issued to
the present petitioner indicating that after
the death of Smt. Chandrika Devi, Ram
Rakhan had inherited half share. This
alongwith the area which was sold in
favour of Bansi Dhar together breached the
ceiling limit, hence, the notice was once
again issued.

 (iv) It is also not disputed that the
petitioner had filed objections contesting
the proceedings under Section 29 of the Act
of 1960, however, the same did not find
favour with either the Prescribed Authority
or the Appellate Authority, hence, the
petitioner preferred a writ petition before
this Court bearing Writ Petition No.1774
(Ceiling) of 1986, which came to be
allowed on 04.01.1989.

 (v) It is also not disputed that
after the writ petition was allowed, the
matter was remitted to the Appellate
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1085
Authority, who by means of the impugned
order dated 17.05.2007 dismissed the
appeal which prompted the petitioner to
once again approach this Court by means of
the instant petition.

21. In view of the aforesaid and
before examining the respective pleas
raised by the parties, it will be appropriate
to notice the directions given by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in its
judgment and order dated 04.01.1989
passed in Writ Petition No.1774 (Ceiling)
of 1986 and the relevant part thereof is
being reproduced hereinafter:-

 ". . . It is true on the record of the
writ petition, the date of death of Smt.
Chandrika Devi is not available but ____
(sic) to the effect that she had died after the
sale-deed was executed, has been made in
the writ petition which has not been
controverted by the State by means of filing
any counter affidavit. It is also to be found
in the order of the appellate court that this
plea was raised that Chandrika Devi had
died after execution of the sale-deed dated
9.7.1976. Therefore, on the basis of
material available on record, this fact had
to be taken into account as stated by the
petitioner, namely, the sale-deed was
executed after finalisation of ceiling
proceedings against Ram Rakhan and
before Chandrika Devi died and her
property was inherited by Ram Rakhan. A
perusal of the order passed by the appellate
court indicates that the said contention as
indicated above was raised by the petitioner
before the appellate court but the appellate
court has merely narrated the arguments
and has not applied its mind to the plea
raised. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the
matter has been completely ignored by the
appellate court and it has only considered
the matter on the ground that the sale-deed
was executed after January 24, 1971 and it
was in favour of own son-in-law of Ram
Rakhan
for
a
consideration
which,
according to the appellate court, was not
sufficient. The sale-deed was sought to be
ignored but the relevant question which
was to be considered, was the effect of
transfer that was made out of the land
which was within the prescribed ceiling
limit and before certain land fell in the
tenancy of Ram Rakhan by inheritance due
to the death of Smt. Chandrika Devi. I find
force in the contention raised on behalf of
the petitioner. There is no dispute about the
fact that a person can very well transfer
land out of the land which he holds within
the prescribed ceiling limit and no doubt
can be had about the genuineness of the
transfer under the provisions of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act. One would never know that when one
of his relations may die as a result of which
one may inherit part of his property. As
observed earlier, although this contention
of the petitioner was noted by the appellate
court but the appellate court completely
ignored to consider the same or to apply its
mind to this aspect of the matter.

 The next submission raised on
behalf of the petitioner is that the plots
No.155, 284, 157, 230, 303, 320, 163, 164,
165 and 324 have been wrongly held to be
irrigated land. In this contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
there was material on record on the basis of
which the courts below should have
decided the question of irrigated and
unirrigated land. The prescribed authority
had held that the above mentioned plots
were irrigated since this question had
already been decided in proceedings
against Smt. Chandrika Devi when the said
plots wee held by her. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance upon
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 38-3 of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to indicate
that earlier decision between the State and
Smt. Chandrika Devi will not apply as res
judicata on the point. In this connection
also, it is found that the learned appellate
court has mentioned about the contention
of the petitioner that the said plots have
been wrongly held to be irrigated but it has
recorded its finding on this question.

 It is clear on perusal of the order
passed by the appellate court that it failed
to apply its mind to the relevant question
which should have been dealt with and
decided by it.

 In the result, the writ petition is
allowed and the order passed by opposite
party No.1 contained in Annexure-3 to the
writ petition is set aside and the case is
remanded to opposite party No.1 for
hearing the appeal afresh and decide the
same taking into consideration the points
raised by the petitioner.
 There would be no order as to
costs."

22. Having taken a glance at the
above quoted order, it would reveal that
before the High Court what contentions
were raised by the petitioner as well as the
State-respondents
and
it
is
only
in
furtherance thereof, the writ petition was
allowed and the matter was remitted. This
apparently assumes significance for the
reasons that the Appellate Authority was
bound to consider the issues which were
required to be deliberated and decided by
the Appellate Authority in terms of the
order passed by the High Court dated
04.01.1989.

23. It will also be relevant to notice
that this order dated 04.01.1989 was not
assailed any further and as such it attained
finality in between the parties. This is to
say that the Appellate Authority was bound
by the order of the High Court and it had to
determine the issues in context and as per
the directions of the High Court.

24. In the aforesaid backdrop, if the
impugned order dated 17.05.2007 is
examined, it would reveal that the
reasoning
adopted
by
the
Appellate
Authority was built on the premise that
after the death of Smt. Chandrika Devi, half
share was inherited by Ram Rakhan. The
Appellate Authority opined that after the
death of Ram Rakhan, the area inherited by
Ram Rakhan from Smt. Chandrika Devi
would thereafter vest with his widow, who
also expired and came in the hands of the
petitioner (being daughter of Ram Rakhan),
hence, in terms of Section 29 of the Act of
1960, the notice would have been issued
and the said notice could not be treated to
be bad nor it would be barred by the
principles of res judicata. The Appellate
Authority also opined that since the alleged
sale-deed dated 09.07.1976 was executed in
favour of Bansi Dhar, who happened to be
the son-in-law and it did not reflect
adequate sale consideration, hence, it
appeared to be a device created to avoid the
imposition of ceiling, hence, the said saledeed was not bonafide and consequently
since it was executed after the cut off date
of 24.01.1971, hence, the same had to be
ignored and for the said reason, the order
passed by the Prescribed Authority dated
10.02.1984
did
not
require
any
interference.

25. If the aforesaid reasoning is
considered in piecemeal, it would indicate
the following errors (i) the first and
foremost as as Appellate Authority before
returning a finding either ways, it ought to
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1087
have been considered by the Appellate
Authority to notice the available evidence
before it upon which the finding could be
based.

26. It is in this context, it would be
found that there is no consideration at all
by the Appellate Authority to the fact that
once in the first round, the land of Ram
Rakhan was found to be beyond the ceiling
limit and had been taken by the State, the
remaining would apparently in the hands of
the tenure holder name, Ram Rakhan
would be within the ceiling limit. This
being the situation, the execution of the
sale-deed on 09.07.1976 in favour of Bansi
Dhar per se cannot be said to be bad or not
bonafide in terms of Section 5 of the Act of
1960 nor it can be said to have been
executed after the cut off date of
24.01.1971, so that it could be ignored.

27. At this stage, it will also be
relevant to point out that mere execution of
the sale-deed after the cut off date does
ipso facto makes it void rather before
ignoring such a sale-deed or before
considering that it was not bonafide, there
has to be some discussion based on cogent
evidence on record to indicate that the saledeed was not bonafide or that it was
executed to only avoid imposition of the
ceiling limit.

28. In this regard, there is no
consideration of the evidence in the
impugned order by the Appellate Authority
coupled with the fact that the State could
not bring any material before this Court
while filing its counter affidavit to show as
to whether there was any lack of bonafides.
The imposition of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1960 is an
proprietary legislation which intends to
take away the land of the tenure holder
provided it breaches the ceiling limit and
subject to the conditions as contained in the
of the Act of 1960, then considering the
nature of legislation, it is to be construed
strictly coupled with the fact that the
powers which have to be exercised by the
State in order to confiscate such land under
the provisions of the Act of 1960 must be
established by the State. Any finding given
merely on the basis of assumptions cannot
be sustained against the tenure holder in
favour of the State.

29. As noticed above, the learned
standing counsel could not indicate either
from the counter affidavit nor from any
material on record as what was the basis for
the Appellate Authority to find that the
sale-deed executed by Ram Rakhan in 1976
in favour of Bansi Dhar, who even though
may be the son-in-law of Ram Rakhan was
not bonafide. No material could be pointed
out
to
demonstrate
that
the
sale
consideration for which the sale-deed had
been executed was inadequate. Merely
giving a finding that the sale-deed was for a
sum
of
Rs.10,000/-
is
inadequate
consideration is per se based on surmise,
which cannot partake the nature of a
finding based on evidence.

30. At this stage, it will be
worthwhile to notice that this Court had the
occasion to consider as to whether a saledeed/a Will merely because it was executed
after the cut off date would ipso facto
became void or is capable of being ignored
without any other material or evidence on
record to indicate that the sale-deed was not
bonafide. In State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath
and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1829,
wherein after taking note of the decision of
the Apex Court in Brijendra Singh v.
State of U.P., (1981) 1 SCC 597, the
dictum was laid. The decision of Kailash
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nath (supra) was followed by this Court in
Ajai Pratap Singh and others v. State of
U.P. and others [WRIT-C No.3000164 of
1998], 2025:AHC-LKO:31419, is being
reproduced hereinafter:-

 "25. This Court had the occasion
to consider a similar issue in State of U.P.
Vs. Kailash Nath & others 2023 SCC
OnLine, All. 1829 wherein the impact of a
sale deed and a Will was considered and
with the aid of decision of the Apex Court,
it was noticed that even though the Will
and the sale deed is executed after the cut
of date yet it is required to be established
that it was bonafide and once the necessary
ingredients are not proved only then the
same would be considered as being hit by
Section 5 of the Act of 1960. The relevant
portion of judgment in Kailash Nath
(supra) is being reproduced hereinafter for
ready reference:-

 "26. From the above, it would
indicate that it uses the terminology to
include not mere simplicitor transfer but
other deed or instrument or in any other
manner. Considering this aspect the Apex
Court in State of U.P. v. Bankey Singh,
(1996) 27 ALR 445 has held as under:

 "... The only question in this case
is : whether the respondents would get
benefit of 1/4th share in the surplus land
declared by the competent authority? On
September 8, 1982, Krishan Pal Singh filed
objection, who claimed land of Khat Nos.
340, 341 and Khata No. 33 of village
Nawada and Khata No. 77 of Village Jamla
Jot on the basis of a Will executed by Smt.
Gajraji. On that basis, the said land is
required to be excluded from the surplus
land. The primary authority had rejected
the claim by proceedings dated July 30,
1983 and on appeal the District Judge
allowed
the
appeal
by
order
dated
November 9, 1983 and excluded 1/4th of
the land held by Gajraji on the basis of the
Will dated September 2, 1978. When it was
questioned, the High Court dismissed Writ
Petition No. 1731/84. Hence, this appeal by
special leave.

 Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961) (for short, 'the
Act') in Chapter II imposes ceiling on land
holdings. Certain exemption mentioned in
the Article gets excluded from surplus land.
Section 5 postulates that 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 ceiling area applicable to him.

 Sub-section
(6)
postulates
determination of the ceiling area applicable
to a tenure-holder. It provides that any
transfer of land made after the 24th day of
January, 1971, which but for the transfer,
would have been declared surplus land
under this Act, shall be ignored and not
taken into account. Explanation-1 provides
that for the purpose of this sub-section the
expression transfer of land made after the
twenty-fourth
day
of
January,
1971
includes, among other things, an admission,
acknowledgment,
relinquishment
or
declaration in favour of a person to the like
effect, made in any other deed or
instrument or in any other manner, shall be
construed to be a transfer for the purpose of
sub-section (6).

 Admittedly,
the
Will
was
executed on February 10, 1978 long after
the specified date. By the Will a devise was
made by Gajraji, owner of the land
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1089
bequeathing her 1/4th share in favour of her
brother's grand-son, Krishan Pratap Singh.
Therefore, it must be construed to be a
devise ?in any other manner? within the
meaning of Explanation 1(b) of sub-section
(6) of the Act. It shall be ignored for the
purpose of determination of the surplus
land. The High Court and the Appellate
Authority, therefore, were not right in
directing to exclude the said land. The
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

27. In light of the aforesaid clear
authority of the Apex Court which is in
context with the provisions of the Ceiling
Act, this Court finds that the decision cited
by the counsel for the respondent and
placing reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench
decision of Mulk Nath Singh (supra) would
be per incuriam for the reason it does not
take note of the decision of the Apex Court
in Bankey Singh (supra). Moreover, the
decision of the Apex Court which has been
relied upon in the case of Mulk Nath Singh
(supra) namely that of S. Rathinam @
Kuppamuthu (supra) is not in context with
the ceiling proceedings rather the said
decision was in context with the general
law where Will was held to be not a case of
transfer. However, in the instant case since
the proceedings arise out of a Special Act
where
special
provisions
have
been
incorporated and the same has been
interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of
Bankey Singh (supra), accordingly in the
humble opinion of this court, the decision
of Bankey Singh (supra) would be a
binding authority and for the aforesaid
reason, the Court is not inclined to accept
the contention of the counsel for the
respondent and follow the decision of Mulk
Nath Singh (supra).

28. It will also be relevant to notice
that the finding which has been reversed by
the Appellate Court in respect of the sale
deed said to have been executed by
Dinanath in favour of Sundar Lal, the same
is not adequately considered nor supported
with reasons. Whether the said sale deed
was executed prior to 24.01.1971 or
thereafter could only be proved once the
said sale deed was on record. In absence of
the said sale deed merely relying upon
certain entries in the revenue records which
do not establish title and are only for fiscal
purposes could not give rise to a categorical
finding and conclusion that since the name
of Sundar Lal was recorded in the revenue
records prior to the said date of 24.01.1971
without clear dates being available as to
when it was entered in the revenue records
and what was the basis and the reason for
incorporating such entries. The findings of
the Appellate Court on the aforesaid point
are not supported by any clear and cogent
evidence, hence are unsustainable.

29. Now coming to the third issue
regarding clubbing the land of Yashodra in
the hands of Dinanath, ignoring the
adoption deed, even the said findings
recorded by the Appellate Court do not
inspire
confidence
as the
Prescribed
Authority while holding the adoption to be
not proved had painstakingly considered
the evidence of the witnesses as well as
noticed the fact that Ramji alias Lallu was
the son of Kailashnath who just few month
prior to the death of Yashodra had been
given in adoption to her. Dinanath
otherwise, being the natural grand father of
Ramji, the said adoption was created only
to divert the property so that it may escape
the clutches of the Ceiling Act.

30. The Prescribed Authority also
noticed that the husband of Yashodra has
expired long ago and in case if he had
expressed his desire to adopt the son, then
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Yashodra ought to have adopted the child
much before and not at the late stage when
the Ceiling Act had already come into the
picture and therefore the transaction was
not valid.

31. How a ceiling area is to be
considered while adjudging a transaction
and whether it would be hit by Section 5
(6) of the Ceiling Act and the manner in
which the Prescribed Authority is to hold
an inquiry in this regard has been
considered by the Apex Court in State of
U.P v. Amar Singh (1997) 1 SCC 734 , the
relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

 "5.Thus, on and from the date the
Amendment Act came into force, namely,
21-1-1971, the tenure-holder shall not hold,
throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh, any
land in the aggregate in excess of ceiling
area applicable to him. Explanation I
adumbrates that in determining ceiling area
applicable to a tenure-holder, all lands held
by him in his own right, whether in his own
name or ostensibly in the name of any other
person, shall be taken into account. In other
words, as on the date the Amendment Act
came into force, the land must be held by
the tenure-holder in his own right and the
lands ostensibly in the name of any other
person shall be taken into account. In this
case, admittedly, the alienations came to be
made by Kishun Singh in favour of his sons
and daughters-in-law. Normally, one would
expect that if there is any compelling legal
necessity to alienate the land, one would
sell the land to third parties and that too, as
prudent vendor for valuable consideration
not to the sons and daughters-in-law. The
object appears to be, as rightly pointed out
by the District Judge, that the alienations
were made by registered instruments in
favour of his sons and daughters-in-law
only to see that the provisions of the Act
are defeated and the lands do not pass into
the hands of strangers. It is true that the
evidence was adduced by the respondents
as regards proof of mutation. Mutation was
effected on the basis that sale deeds came
to be executed in favour of sons and
daughters-in-law. Therefore, the mutation
officer was not concerned at that stage to
find out whether the sales were benami or
ostensibly intended to defeat the provisions
of the Act. It is settled law that mutation
entries are only for the purpose of enabling
the State to collect the land revenue from
the person in possession but it does not
confer any title to the land. The title would
be derived from an instrument executed by
the owner in favour of an alienee as per the
Stamp Act and registered under the
Registration Act. The alienees being sons
and daughters-in-law, the tenure-holder
remained to be the owner and holder of the
land. The sons and daughters-in-law are
only ostensible owners under Explanation I
to Section 5(1) of the Act. It is true that
Lekh Pal has not categorically stated
whether the respondents remained in
possession in their own right after the
alienation. It is not in dispute that the father
and sons remained to be members of the
joint family and were cultivating the land.
Under these circumstances, one would
normally expect that Lekh Pal may not be
in a position to categorically assert whether
respondents remained in possession in their
own right as owners or were cultivating
land on their own or on behalf of the
coparceners. Under these circumstances,
the findings of the High Court are illegal.
The case falls under Explanation I of
Section 5(1) and the burden is always only
on the respondents to establish that they
were not ostensibly owning the land but
remained in their own right as owners.
Accordingly, we hold that Kishun Singh
was the holder of the land. He was a
10 All. Puttul Kumari Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
1091
tenure-holder as on the date and, therefore,
ceiling area has to be computed treating
him to be the owner of the land; besides
himself, he had eight sons who are entitled
to the respective additional ceiling area
given to them under the Act. The
authorities are, therefore, directed to
compute the ceiling area accordingly and
take possession of the surplus land.

32. The Apex Court has also
considered the aforesaid aspect in Nawal
Singh v . State of U.P., 1995 Supp (1) SCC
204 and the relevant portion reads as
under:-

 2. For a transfer effected after 241-1971 to be valid it must be proved to
have been made in good faith, for adequate
consideration,
under
an
irrevocable
instrument, not being a benami transaction,
or for immediate or deferred benefit of the
tenureholder or other members of his
family. Findings have been recorded at one
stage or the other that the sale effected by
the
appellant
was
for
adequate
consideration and under an irrevocable
instrument, not being a benami transaction
or for immediate or deferred benefit of the
tenureholder or other members of his
family. These findings have been recorded
in the backdrop that the appellant had his
holdings in two villages i.e. Sihi and
Asawar and that he was residing in Sihi,
and had to manage his land at Asawar at a
distance of about two and a half miles.
Additionally he was an old man of about 65
years of age at the relevant time, had no
son to look after him and his only daughter
who was married was living elsewhere. In
this situation, the appellant thought proper,
as is his case, to sell the land at village
Asawar for a sum of Rs.60,000 and he
asserts that out of it he transferred a sum of
Rs. 35,000 to his daughter by way of gift
and paid gift tax thereon. These assertions
of the appellant have not been countered at
any stage. His complete version has been
doubted only on the premise that the sale
was effected after the crucial date i.e. 24-11971 which was reflective of absence of
good faith.

 3.