# Rakesh Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1361
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3000066 of 1998
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-v-addl-commissioner-admn-faizabad-ors-50898
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Ceiling on Land Holdings -
Validity of Adoption Under U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Petitioner challenged the orders dated 30.03.1995
and 24.01.1998, which rejected his claim of being
the adopted son of Sant Ram, arguing that Sant
Ram's land devolved upon him and not his
brothers, Ramdhan and Govardhan - Held, the
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority erred
in dismissing overwhelming oral and documentary
evidence, including St.ments from the petitioner's
mother, village Pradhan, priest, and revenue
records, confirming the adoption, rendering their
findings arbitrary and perverse. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, 16, 17)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 - Compliance with Section 11 -
Respondents
argued
the
adoption
was
a
camouflage to evade ceiling limits - Held, the
adoption complied with Section 11(vi) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as
evidenced by the priest's testimony and villagers'
St.ments confirming a formal ceremony where the
petitioner, a minor, was given and taken in
adoption
by
Sant
Ram,
satisfying
legal
requirements for a valid adoption. (Paras 12, 20,
21)

C. Devolution of Property Post-Adoption -
The Prescribed Authority held that Sant Ram's land
devolved upon his brothers, Ramdhan and
Govardhan, leading to surplus land declarations -
Held, as the petitioner was validly adopted by Sant
Ram, his property devolved upon the petitioner,
not his brothers, and thus, the land should not
have been included in Ramdhan and Govardhan's
holdings for ceiling calculations under the Act,

## Text

1 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad & Ors.
1361
jurisdiction of civil Courts has not been
ousted. The matters which have been
excluded have been clearly stated in
Section 145 of the Act, 2003 and the
dispute in the present case is not covered.

19. The writ petition devoid of merits
is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1361
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 3000066 of 1998

Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad &
Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.S. Sahai, S.K. Gupta, U.S. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Ceiling on Land Holdings -
Validity of Adoption Under U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Petitioner challenged the orders dated 30.03.1995
and 24.01.1998, which rejected his claim of being
the adopted son of Sant Ram, arguing that Sant
Ram's land devolved upon him and not his
brothers, Ramdhan and Govardhan - Held, the
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority erred
in dismissing overwhelming oral and documentary
evidence, including St.ments from the petitioner's
mother, village Pradhan, priest, and revenue
records, confirming the adoption, rendering their
findings arbitrary and perverse. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, 16, 17)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 - Compliance with Section 11 -
Respondents
argued
the
adoption
was
a
camouflage to evade ceiling limits - Held, the
adoption complied with Section 11(vi) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as
evidenced by the priest's testimony and villagers'
St.ments confirming a formal ceremony where the
petitioner, a minor, was given and taken in
adoption
by
Sant
Ram,
satisfying
legal
requirements for a valid adoption. (Paras 12, 20,
21)

C. Devolution of Property Post-Adoption -
The Prescribed Authority held that Sant Ram's land
devolved upon his brothers, Ramdhan and
Govardhan, leading to surplus land declarations -
Held, as the petitioner was validly adopted by Sant
Ram, his property devolved upon the petitioner,
not his brothers, and thus, the land should not
have been included in Ramdhan and Govardhan's
holdings for ceiling calculations under the Act,
1960. (Paras 7, 17, 18, 22)

D. Evaluation of Evidence - Arbitrary
Rejection - Petitioner contended that the
Prescribed Authority misread his mother's St.ment
and ignored consistent testimonies - Held, the
authorities' rejection of the adoption based on
Shanti Devi's absence during the ceremony and an
erroneous interpretation of her St.ment was hypertechnical and ignored corroborative evidence from
multiple witnesses and revenue records, violating
the court's earlier directive in Writ Petition No.
3387 of 1980 to consider all evidence holistically.
(Paras 13, 14, 16, 17, 19)

E. Judicial Review of Ceiling Orders - The
Appellate
Authority
upheld
the
Prescribed
Authority's finding without properly evaluating
evidence - Held, the orders dated 30.03.1995 and
24.01.1998 were unsustainable due to their failure
to consider substantial evidence of adoption and
misapplication of the Act, 1960, warranting their
quashing and recognition of the petitioner's right
to inherit Sant Ram's land. (Paras 15, 17, 23)

Writ Petition Allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 24.01.1998, passed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad whereby he has dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the order of Prescribed Authority dated
30.03.1995, which was passed under Section
10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act, 1960").

3 . Notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act, 1960 was issued to one Sant Ram and as
he was found to be having land less than the
ceiling limit, proceedings against him were
dropped. In the said proceedings it was found
that Sant Ram had two brothers namely
Ramdhan and Govardhan and after death of
Sant Ram his land devolved upon Ramdhan
and Govardhan and after accretion of the said
land their land was more than the ceiling limit
and accordingly notices under Section 10(2)
of the Act, 1960 were issued to Ramdhan and
Govardhan. The proceedings were finalized
by the Prescribed Authority by means of
order dated 30.12.1977 and portion of their
land were declared surplus.

4. Against the order dated 30.12.1977,
appeals were filed before the Appellate
Authority which were allowed by means of
order dated 17.05.1978 and the matter was
remanded to the Prescribed Authority for
decision afresh. In the remand proceedings
the Prescribed Authority again passed the
order declaring the land of tenure holders to
be surplus by means of order dated
28.10.1978. Again appeals were preferred
by the petitioner as well as recorded tenure
holders namely Ramdhan and Govardhan,
which appeals were allowed on 16.07.1979
and the matter was again remanded to the
Prescribed
Authority.
The
Prescribed
Authority on the second occasion again
reiterated his previous order by means of
order dated 02.06.1980, rejecting the
objections filed by the petitioner and other
tenure holders. Against the order dated
02.06.1980, the appeals preferred by the
petitioner and other recorded tenure holders
were also dismissed by the Appellate
Authority by means of order dated
18.08.1980,
upholding
the
order
of
Prescribed Authority dated 02.06.1980, on
the ground that the petitioner as well as
recorded tenure holders had surplus land.

5. Against the order dated 02.06.1980,
writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3387
of 1980 was filed. This Court by means of
order dated 15.11.1988, allowed the writ
petition considering the fact that the
District Judge did not considered the
provisions of The Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 particularly Section
11 and for the limited purposes had
remitted the matter to the Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority by
means of order dated 29.10.1992, allowed
the appeals and further remanded the
matter to the Prescribed Authority.

6. It is in the remand proceedings that
the Prescribed Authority has passed the
impugned order dated 30.03.1995, holding
that the petitioner is not adopted son of
Ramdhan and consequently rejected the
objections by means of order dated
30.03.1995 and the said order has been
upheld by the Appellate Authority ?
Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Faizabad Division, Faizabad by means of
order dated 24.01.1998 and the petitioner in
the present writ petition has assailed the
validity of both the orders dated 30.03.1995
and 24.01.1998 in the present writ petition.

7. The sole question to be considered
in the present writ petition is as to whether
1 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad & Ors.
1363
the petitioner is the adopted son of
Ramdhan and accordingly land of Sant
Ram devolved upon the petitioner in case it
is held that petitioner is adopted son of Sant
Ram and land of Sant Ram would devolve
upon the petitioner and if not then land of
Sant Ram will devolve to Ramdhan and
Govardhan and their land subsequently
would be considered under the provisions
of Act, 1960.

9. The petitioner has submitted that he
was adopted by Sant Ram when he was
around 6-7 years old and since then he was
living with Sant Ram. He has further
submitted that after his adoption his
education was looked after by Sant Ram till
his death. During the proceedings before
the Prescribed Authority mother of the
petitioner Shanti Devi was examined and
statements of Govardhan, Udairaj (Gram
Pradhan) and Sewak Ram (Priest) who
conducted ceremonies of adoption were
adduced and various other persons of
village had also testified in favour of
petitioner that he was duly adopted by Sant
Ram and after his adoption he lived as son
of Sant Ram. All the testimonies are similar
in nature which are to the effect that Sant
Ram did not have any children and because
of this fact the petitioner was given in
adoption by Sant Ram's brother Ramdhan.

10. It is stated that ceremony for
adoption was performed wherein formally
the petitioner was handed over in the
custody of Sant Ram. Mother of the
petitioner Shanti Devi has also deposed
before the Prescribed Authority verifying
the fact that the petitioner was her son and
was given in adoption to Sant Ram. Village
Pradhan Udairaj has also reiterated the
same facts. He has further stated that when
the ceremony was performed invitation
were issued to all the villagers and relatives
and it is in the said ceremony that the
petitioner was given in adoption to Sant
Ram.

11. It was stated that at the time of
adoption the petitioner was minor and that
Sant Ram died in 1973. It has been further
stated that after death of Sant Ram all the
properties of Sant Ram devolved upon the
petitioner and his name was also mutated in
the revenue records and he was in
possession of the properties held by Sant
Ram.

12. Statement of Sewak Ram (Priest)
who was the Priest at the time of adoption
ceremonies,
has
stated
that
he
had
conducted the ceremonies for adoption of
petitioner and he was voluntarily given in
adoption by Ramdhan and Shanti Devi who
are parents of petitioner. The petitioner was
2-2and half years old and large ceremony
was organised in which adoption had taken
place.

13. It is in the aforesaid facts adduced
before the Prescribed Authority he has
disbelieved the averments of the petitioner
and other witnesses that he was given in
adoption to Sant Ram. While rejecting the
objections filed by the petitioner it was
stated that adoption is merely camouflage
to escape from the clutches of the Act,
1960. He has stated that the mother of
petitioner Shanti Devi has stated that she
did not participated in the adoption
ceremony and that said adoption had been
done only to escape from the clutches of
Ceiling provisions of Act, 1960 and hence
the Prescribed on the basis of above facts
disbelieved the aspect of adoption.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that perusal of statement of
Shanti Devi would indicate that said
1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement as quoted by the Prescribed
Authority in the impugned order is
erroneous and perverse and infact Shanti
Devi had affirmed the fact that petitioner
was given in adoption to the Sant Ram,
though she was not present when
ceremony was performed. It is submitted
that merely because Shanti Devi was not
present
during
the
ceremony,
her
statement cannot be disbelieved that the
petitioner was not given in adoption.

15. The Appellate Authority has
affirmed the findings recorded by the
Prescribed Authority and also held that
from
the
evidence
on
record
that
petitioner was given in adoption to Sant
Ram and dismissed the appeal.

16. Assailing both the orders,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that there is overwhelming
evidence on record that petitioner was
given in adoption to Sant Ram apart from
above statements of relatives including
his mother, uncle and other independent
witnesses who included Chinta Ram,
Nanmun, Udai Raj (Gram Pradhan) etc.
All the persons who had deposed had
unequivocally stated that the petitioner
was given in adoption when he was
minor. Grand ceremony was organized
and invitations were sent to all the
villagers and in their presence adoption
ceremony was carried out. Priest - Sewak
Ram in his statement has stated all the
aforesaid facts. Apart from oral evidence
in the revenue records name of petitioner
was mutated in place of Sant Ram.

17. Considering the aforesaid this
Court is of the considered view that there
was
sufficient
evidence
before
the
Prescribed Authority to conclude that the
petitioner had infact been given in adoption
to Sant Ram and once he had been given in
adoption to Sant Ram, then he was legally
entitled to inherit the property of Sant Ram
and therefore the same property would not
have been devolved upon Govardhan and
Ramdhan. Accordingly this Court is of the
considered view that sufficient evidence
were adduced by the petitioner. The finding
returned by the learned Authorities below
is clearly arbitrary and perverse.

18. Once the lands of Govardhan and
Ramdhan has been stated to be within the
ceiling limit and the Prescribed Authority
has proceeded against them on such an
assumption. This Court is of the considered
view that adoption was legally and validly
done for the purposes of Act, 1960, then
property of Sant Ram would have devolved
upon the petitioner and not in favour of
Govardhan and Ramdhan.

19. This Court has also taken into
account the findings recorded by this Court
in Writ Petition No. 3387 of 1980, where
this Court has also analysed the aforesaid
oral evidence adduced in favour of
petitioner and this Court was also not
satisfied that the Prescribed Authority had
rejected the oral testimony on basis of
hyper technical issues. This Court had
directed
the
Prescribed
Authority
to
consider the entire evidence and not merely
evidence which had come from the
individuals which may not be in favour of
petitioner. This Court had further directed
the Prescribed Authority to consider case of
the petitioner in the light of provisions of
Section 11 of The Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956.

20. This Court has also examined the
case of petitioner in the light of provisions
of Section 11 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. Section 11 of the The
1 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad & Ors.
1365
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 provides that :-

"11. Other conditions for a
valid adoption.- In every adoption, the
following conditions must be complied
with:-

(i) if the adoption is of a son,
the adoptive father or mother by whom
the adoption is made must not have a
Hindu son son's son or son's son's son
(whether by legitimate blood relationship
or by adoption) living at the time of
adoption;

(ii) if the adoption is of a
daughter, the adoptive father or mother
by whom the adoption is made must not
have a Hindu daughter or son's daughter
(whether by legitimate blood relationship
or by adoption) living at the time of
adoption;

(iii) if the adoption is by a male
and the person to be adopted is a female,
the adoptive father is at least twenty-one
years older than the person to be
adopted;

(iv) if the adoption is by a
female and the person to be adopted is a
male, the adoptive mother is at least
twenty-one years older than the person to
be adopted;

(v) the same child may not be
adopted simultaneously by two or more
persons;

(vi) the child to be adopted must
be actually given and taken in adoption by
the parents or guardian concerned or
under their authority with intent to transfer
the child from the family of its birth [or in
the case of an abandoned child or a child
whose parentage is not known, from the
place or family where it has been brought
up] to the family of its adoption;

Provided that the performance of
datta homam shall not be essential to be
validity of an adoption."

21. In the light of sub section VI of
Section 11 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act there is ample evidence
on record in the form of statement of one
Sewak Ram (Priest) and other villagers
including biological mother of petitioner
that petitioner was given in adoption and
formal ceremony was held where he was
given in adoption. This Court is of the
considered view that all the provisions
provided for adoption of a son have been
duly complied with in the present case.

22. In the light of above documentary
and oral testimony available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner has to be considered to have been
validly adopted by Sant Ram and hence
after death of Sant Ram his property will
devolve upon the petitioner and not upon
brothers of Sant Ram.

23. Accordingly, impugned orders
dated 30.03.1995 and 24.01.1998 are
hereby set aside. The writ petition stands
allowed.
----------