# Ram Krishna Math & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 714
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000016 of 1994
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-krishna-math-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48230
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 11(2) - U.
P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Rules, 1961, Rule 8, proviso -
Unrecorded
tenure
holder
is
also
entitled to file an objection u/s 11(2) of
the Act, 1960 if they are in possession
of the land and have interest in land
holding which was declared as surplus

B. Under proviso of Rule 8 Prescribed
Authority shall cause to be served a notice to
the person in whose name the land included
in CLH Form 3 is ostensibly held - If a person
has acquired right, title and interest by a
legal and valid instrument of sale-deed, will
or dedication, then he would be required to
be issued notice even if his name is not
recorded as tenure holder in the revenue
record and, if the land of such a person is
treated to be land holding of the tenure
holder to whom notice under Section 10(2)
of the Act, 1960 was issued - such a person
would be entitled to file an objection under
Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 and the
Prescribed
Authority
should
decide
the
objection
after
giving
opportunity
for
adducing evidence by such person in respect
of the land, which has been declared surplus
and which is claimed to be of such an
unrecorded tenure holder (Para 24, 25, 26)

C. Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), rejected
petitioner's objections u/s 11(2) of the Act,
1960 - petitioners filed an objection and
claimed that most of the land in possession
of noticee was the tenancy of the petitioners
through
the
various
deeds
against
-
petitioners claimed themselves to be owners
and tenure holders of the land in question
and prayed for an opportunity of hearing -
In the impugned order it was held that since
notice u/s 10(2) of the Act had already been
given to the recorded tenure holders and the
petitioners being not the recorded tenure
holders, they were not entitled for any notice
under the Act, 1960 & they were not entitled
to file and maintain objections under Section
11(2) of the Act, 1960 - Held - petitioners
have been in possession of the land and they
have interest in land holding which was
declared as surplus, therefore, they could
not have been thrown out on the ground of
maintainability - ground on which the
objections of the petitioners were rejected
are untenable (Para 27)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)03ILR A714
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 3000016 of 1994

Ram Krishna Math & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ankit Pande, Dr. Ramsurat Pande, Virendra
Bhatt

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 11(2) - U.
P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Rules, 1961, Rule 8, proviso -
Unrecorded
tenure
holder
is
also
entitled to file an objection u/s 11(2) of
the Act, 1960 if they are in possession
of the land and have interest in land
holding which was declared as surplus

B. Under proviso of Rule 8 Prescribed
Authority shall cause to be served a notice to
the person in whose name the land included
in CLH Form 3 is ostensibly held - If a person
has acquired right, title and interest by a
legal and valid instrument of sale-deed, will
or dedication, then he would be required to
be issued notice even if his name is not
recorded as tenure holder in the revenue
record and, if the land of such a person is
treated to be land holding of the tenure
holder to whom notice under Section 10(2)
of the Act, 1960 was issued - such a person
would be entitled to file an objection under
Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 and the
Prescribed
Authority
should
decide
the
objection
after
giving
opportunity
for
adducing evidence by such person in respect
of the land, which has been declared surplus
and which is claimed to be of such an
unrecorded tenure holder (Para 24, 25, 26)

C. Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), rejected
petitioner's objections u/s 11(2) of the Act,
1960 - petitioners filed an objection and
claimed that most of the land in possession
of noticee was the tenancy of the petitioners
through
the
various
deeds
against
-
petitioners claimed themselves to be owners
and tenure holders of the land in question
and prayed for an opportunity of hearing -
In the impugned order it was held that since
notice u/s 10(2) of the Act had already been
given to the recorded tenure holders and the
petitioners being not the recorded tenure
holders, they were not entitled for any notice
under the Act, 1960 & they were not entitled
to file and maintain objections under Section
11(2) of the Act, 1960 - Held - petitioners
have been in possession of the land and they
have interest in land holding which was
declared as surplus, therefore, they could
not have been thrown out on the ground of
maintainability - ground on which the
objections of the petitioners were rejected
are untenable (Para 27)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gurumukh Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
C.M. Writ Petition No.4859 of 1986

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed,
impugning the orders dated 29.07.1992 and
20.01.1994 passed by the Prescribed
Authority and the Appellate Authority
under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for
short "the Act, 1960").

2. The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling),
Lucknow rejected the objections filed by
the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the
Act, 1960 against which the appeal got
3 All. Arshadullah & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
715
dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The
orders passed to the said effect are under
challenge in this petition.

3. One Tej Narain Dar was exclusive
owner in possession of agricultural land,
consisting of several plots in village
Katarabakkash,
Pargana
and
Tehsil
Mohanlalganj,
District
Lucknow.
He
became owner and got possession of the
said land as a result of partition decree of
the year 1976 passed under Section 176 of
the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

4. Parents of Tej Narain Dar, namely,
Anand Swaroop Narain Dar and Smt.
Mohan Rani Dar had three more sons,
namely, Jagdish Narain Dar, Ishwar Narain
Dar and Rajendra Narain Dar. It is said that
wife of Tej Narain Dar also owned and
exclusively possessed agricultural land
holding in her name as Bhumidhar with
transferable rights.

5. A notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act, 1960 was issued to Tej Narain Dar,
clubbing his land-holding and land holding
of his wife, treating them to be one unit.
After contest, the ceiling area of husband
and wife was determined and surplus area
was declared by the Prescribed Authority
vide order dated 26.09.1974.

6. In the year 1976, Smt. Mohan Rani
Dar, mother of Tej Narain Dar and his three
brothers, died. She was in possession of
separate
bhumidhari
agricultural
land
holding. Her land holding got devolved
amongst her sons, namely, Tej Narain Dar,
Rajendra Narain Dar and Smt. Urmila Dar,
widow of Ishwar Narain Dar, and Smt.
Nirmala Dar, wife of Late Jagdish Narain
Dar to the extent of 1/4th share to each
through sale-deed dated 20.07.1966. As a
result of bequest 1/4th share of his mother
by virtue of the will dated 20.07.1966. The
total land holding in possession of Tej
Narain
Dar,
after
the
first
ceiling
proceedings crossed the ceiling limits and,
in view of increase in his land holding, Tej
Narain Dar informed the Ceiling Authority
himself about his land holding having got
increased. A fresh notice under Section
10(2) of the Act, 1960 for the second time
was
issued
to
him.
He
voluntarily
surrendered his specified plots of land for
declaring the surplus area. The Prescribed
Authority (Ceiling), Lucknow passed the
final order dated 03.12.1981, declaring for
the second time the surplus land of Tej
Narain Dar.

7. Against the said order dated
03.12.1981, Rajendra Narain Dar preferred
an appeal before the District Judge,
Lucknow and also filed objection before
the Prescribed Authority, alleging that
while declaring surplus land of Tej Narain
Dar and his wife, some of his own plots
had been declared as surplus land by
including them in the holding of Tej Narain
Dar. In view of the objection filed by
Rajendra Narain Dar, the appeal filed by
him got abated. The ceiling proceedings
against Tej Narain Dar, which was initially
decided on 03.12.1981, was re-opened after
recalling the order dated 03.12.1981.

8. The petitioners filed an objection in
the said proceedings on 02.09.1987 through
which the reopening of the ceiling
proceedings of Tej Narain Dar was
opposed and, in the alternate, it was
claimed that most of the land in possession
of Tej Narain Dar and his wife was the
tenancy of the petitioners through the
various deeds.

9. The Prescribed Authority, after
hearing the parties, vide order dated
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28.11.1987 determined the surplus area of
Tej Narain Dar and his wife, treating them
to be one unit. Plot nos. 1643/1, area 19
Biswas and 15 Biswansis, 1744/1, area 2
Biswas, 14 Biswansis and 10 Kachhwansis
besides other plots were declared surplus
which had been given by Taj Narain Dar to
the petitioners.

10. It may be noted here that Tej Narain
Dar and his wife were issue less and, were
great devotees of the Ram Krishna Math and
its sister organization Ram Krishana Mission.
They had dedicated almost their entire
properties, including the plots, mentioned as
agricultural land, to the petitioner nos. 1 and
2. A separate trust was created by the Ram
Krishna Math and Ram Krishna Mission and,
Tej Narain Dar and Smt. Urmila Dar, widow
of Late Ishwar Narain Dar in the memory of
late Smt. Mohan Rani Dar, mother of Tej
Narain Dar, named as 'Mohan Rani Dar
Religious and Charitable Endowment Trust.
Tej Narain Dar and his wife dedicated their
1/4th share each in the mango groves, being
plot nos. 2493, 2494/1, 2494/2, 2495, 2496,
2499, 2402/1, 2516, 2522, 2523, 2524, 2525,
2526, 2527, 2528, 2529, 2530, 2531, 2532,
2561/1, 2562/1, 2588, 2589, 2592 and 2593.
Subsequently, Smt. Nirmala Dar, wife of
Jagdish Narain Dar, also sold her 1/4th share
in the above mentioned mango groves
received by her under the bequest from her
mother-in-law, Smt. Mohan Rani Dar to
Charitable Trust. Thus, Smt. Mohan Rani Dar
Religious and Charitable Endowment Trust
came to own and posses 3/4th share in the
above mentioned groves and, the remaining
1/4th share in the said grove remained to be
owned by Rajendra Narain Dar jointly with
the said Trust.

11. The above mentioned dedications
of the properties, included the agricultural
holding of Tej Narain Dar and his wife,
Smt. Sarala Dar, which was made by Tej
Narain Dar, acting for himself and, as the
general agent of his wife in favour of the
Math and Mission. The above mentioned
dedications of properties, including the
agricultural holding of Tej Narain Dar and
his wife, Smt. Sarala Dar, were made by
Tej Narain Dar acting for himself and as
the general agent of his wife in favour of
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 through different
registered deeds, will and trust deeds
executed by Smt. Urmila Dar.

12. On the basis of the aforesaid
deeds and dedications, title and possession,
the mutation report proceedings were made
under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act before the Tehsildar Mohanlalganj by
the petitioners. The mutation proceedings
were opposed by Rajendra Narain Dar by
filing
objections,
challenging
to
the
dedication made by his brother, Tej Narain
Dar, his wife, Smt. Sarala Dar and Smt.
Urmila Dar, widow of Ishwar Narain Dar.

13. During the pendency of mutation
proceedings, Tej Narain Dar died on
22.08.1985. Rajendra Narain Dar managed
to obtain mutation of his name as well
name of his brother Jagdish Narain Dar
(since deceased, husband of Smt. Nirmala
Dar) in Khatauni through PA-11 in place of
recorded tenure holders, Tej Narain Dar
and his wife Smt. Sarala Dar.

14. Applications under Section 34 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act were dismissed
on 24.09.1988 on the ground that the land
was involved in ceiling proceedings.

15. A fresh notice was issued to
Rajendra Narain Dar, who was Village
Pradhan, as well as to Jagdish Narain Dar
(since deceased, husband of Smt. Nirmala
Dar). Pursuance to the said notice under
3 All. Arshadullah & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
717
Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960, the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Executive)/Prescribed Authority, Rural
Ceiling, Lucknow in Ceiling Case No.14 of
1988-89 passed the order on 16.12.1989,
declaring the very land as surplus which
consisted of the plots which were subject
matter of the dedications and the said
mutation proceedings initiated at the
instance of the petitioners.

16. When the petitioners came to
know about the aforesaid order dated
16.12.1989,
an
application
dated
20.03.1990
was
moved
before
the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Executive)/Prescribed Authority, Rural
Ceiling who stayed the implementation of
the order dated 16.12.1989 and also passed
an order for issuing notice to Naib
Tehsildar
(Ceiling).
Thereafter,
on
17.04.1990,
the
petitioners
moved
a
detailed regular objection under Section
11(2)
of
the
Act,
1960,
claiming
themselves respectively to be owners and
tenure holders of the land in question and
prayed for an opportunity of hearing.

17. On 29.07.1992, the Prescribed
Authority rejected the objection and prayer
of the petitioners and, maintained the order
dated
16.12.1989,
holding
that
the
objection was not maintainable.

18. Having aggrieved from the said
order passed by the Prescribed Authority,
the petitioners filed Appeal Nos. 40 and 41.
Both the appeals were dismissed by
common
judgment
dated
20.01.1994
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Judicial), Lucknow.

19. Heard Dr. Ram Surat Pandey,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Ankit Pandey, Advocate, representing the
petitioners, as well as Mr. J.P. Maurya,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
representing respondents-State, and gone
through the entire record.

20. On behalf of the petitioners, learned
Senior Counsel has submitted that the
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Authority have passed non-speaking orders,
dismissing the appeals. It was held that since
the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act,
1960 had already been given to the recorded
tenure holders and the petitioners being not
the recorded tenure holders, they were not
entitled for any notice under the Act, 1960
and, they were not entitled to file and
maintain objections under Section 11(2) of
the Act, 1960.

21. The question, which is involved in
the present case, is whether an objection filed
under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 by an
unrecorded tenure holder would be legally
maintainable and whether such an unrecorded
tenure holder is entitled to be heard by the
Prescribed Authority in respect of the land,
which has been declared surplus and, which
is claimed to be of such an unrecorded tenure
holder.

22. It has been submitted that the
petitioners have been in possession of the
land and they have interest in land holding
which was declared as surplus, therefore, in
spite of the fact that the ceiling proceedings
were drawn and two orders were passed in
respect of the same land against the recorded
tenure holders, the objection under Section
11(2) of the Act, 1960 on behalf of the
petitioners claiming to have interest and right
over the said land could not have been
thrown out on the ground of maintainability.

23. On behalf of the petitioners,
learned Senior Advocate has
further
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted that the two authorities below
have wrongly recorded the finding that the
petitioners did not file any evidence in
support of their case, whereas they had
filed documentary evidence in support of
their claim.

24. The notice requiring the tenure
holder to show cause why the statement
prepared by the Prescribed Authority be not
taken as correct is to be issued to the tenure
holder in respect of whose holding the
statement has been prepared under CLH
Form-3 by the Prescribed Authority. Under
the proviso, of rule-8 of The U. P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Rules, 1961, the Prescribed Authority shall
cause to be served a notice to the person in
whose name the land included in CLH
Form 3 is ostensibly held. The Prescribed
Authority prepares the statement on the
basis of the revenue records. If from the
revenue records or other information, the
Prescribed Authority comes to know that
the land included in the statement in CLH
Form 3 includes land ostensibly held in the
name of any other person, the Prescribed
Authority is bound to serve a notice on
such a person.

25. This Court in C.M. Writ Petition
No.4859 of 1986 (Gurumukh Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide
judgment dated 24th July, 1989 held that
from a bare reading of Section 9(2) and
rule-8 it is manifest that notice under
Section 9(2) is mandatory to the recorded
tenure holder and in case tenure holder is
not recorded, or if another tenure holder
has purchased the land, but is not recorded
then the notice must be issued to him as
well. Under rule-8 it has been provided that
CLH Form-3 also includes the land
ostensibly held in the name of any other
person, the Prescribed Authority shall
cause to be served upon such a person a
notice in CLH Form-4 together with a copy
of the statement in CLH Form-3 calling
upon him to show cause within a period of
fifteen days from the date of service of the
notice, why the aforesaid statement be not
taken as correct. Relevant part of the said
judgment is extracted herein below:-

"Having
heard
the
learned
counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the impugned orders cannot be
sustained. A bare reading of Section 9(2)
and Rule 8 makes it manifest that the notice
under Section 9(2) is mandatory to the
recorded tenure-holder and in case tenureholder is not recorded, or if another
tenure-holder has purchased the land but is
not recorded, then the notice must be
issued to him as well. Under Rule 8 of the
Rules it has been provided that C.L.H. form
3 also includes the land ostensibly held in
the name of any other person, the
prescribed authority shall cause to be
served upon such a person a notice in
C.L.H. form 4 together with a copy of the
statement of C.L.H. form No. 3 calling
upon him to show cause within a period of
fifteen days from the date of service of the
notice, why the aforesaid statement be not
taken as correct. In the present case, no
such notice was given to petitioners, who
were purchasers from the recorded tenureholder under the aforesaid sale-deed. The
provisos of Rule 8 were mandatory in
nature. These4 provisions are set out as
follows:

"As soon as may, after expiry of
the thirty days from the date of publication
of the general notice in C.L.H. Form 1 in
the official gazette, the prescribed authority
shall cause to be served upon every tenure
holder, who have failed to submit the
statement in C.L.H. Form 2 or has
3 All. Arshadullah & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
719
submitted an incomplete or incorrect
statement, a notice in C.L.H. Form 4
together with the copy of statement in
C.L.H. Form 3 prepared under Rule calling
upon him to show cause within a period of
fifteen days from the date of the service of
the notice, why the aforesaid statement be
not taken as correct."

Rule 8 provides two types of
tenure-holders, First is the recorded tenure
holder and the proviso provides notice to
be served on any other tenure holder other
than provided in the 1st part of the Rule.
Section 3 (17) defines tenure holder, which
means holder of a holding. After execution
of the sale-deed, the vendees the petitioners
in the present case, become holders of a
holding even though they might not be
recorded
in
the
revenue
papers
as
Bhumidhars. A bare reading of Section 9
and Rule 8 would make it evidence that
notice is statutorily required to be served
on the Vendees, even though they might not
have been entered in the revenue papers.

Apart
from
the
statutory
requirement under the general principles
of law or the conman law also, in the
exercise of judicial or quasi judicial
power the rules of natural justice should
be observed. It should not only be done
but should manifestly and undoubtedly be
seen to be done. The primary rule of
natural justice is that no one may be
condemned unheard or no citizen must be
deprived of his legal rights or property
without first affording him reasonable
opportunity of hearing by serving a
notice on him or them.

Lake Distt. Special Planning
Board
v.
Secretary
of
State
for
Environment (3), R.V. Working JJ. Exparte Gassage (4), Civil Judge (supra)
the Full Bench (on para 36; page 142)
rules as follows;

"The fact that a tenure holder is
not recorded as such in the revenue
records is not relevant for determining
whether he is etitled to file an objection
to the statement prepared under Section
10 (1) of the Act and issued notice to
another person under Section 10 (2) of
the Act and the above fact does not
disentitle him to file an objection if he is
otherwise entitled to do so."

26. If a person has acquired right,
title and interest by a legal and valid
instrument
of
sale-deed,
will
or
dedication, then he would be required to
be issued notice even if his name is not
recorded as tenure holder in the revenue
record and, if the land of such a person is
treated to be land holding of the tenure
holder to whom notice under Section
10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued and
proceedings got finalized, such a person
would be entitled to file an objection
under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 and
the Prescribed Authority should decide
the objection after giving opportunity for
adducing evidence by such person and
other affected persons.

27. In the present case, the objections
of the petitioners filed under Section 11(2)
of the Act, 1960 have been dismissed on
the ground being not maintainable and also
on the ground that the petitioners did not
produce evidence. I find that the ground on
which the objections of the petitioners were
rejected are untenable. In view thereof, the
writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the
impugned orders dated 29.07.1992 and
20.01.1994 passed by the Additional
Collector
(Administration),
Prescribed
Authority, Ceiling, Lucknow and the
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow Division, Lucknow, copies of
which are contained in Annexure No. 1 and
2 to the writ petition respectively, are
hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted
back to the Prescribed Authority to decide a
fresh the objections filed by the petitioners
under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 after
affording them opportunity for leading
evidence
and,
pass
a
fresh
order
expeditiously.
----------
(2022)03ILR A720
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 3000024 of 1998

Sita Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.P.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 - Section 4A - Determination of
irrigated land - To determine whether the
land is irrigated or un-irrigated, prescribed
authority
shall
examine
the
relevant
Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1979 Fasli
and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and
such other records as it may consider
necessary, and may also make local
inspection and, thereafter, the prescribed
authority may proceed to determine the
nature of land whether it is un-irrigated or
irrigated

Notice u/s 10(2) was issued & in CLH Form-3 an
area of 7.25 acres in terms of the irrigated land
was proposed to be declared as surplus -
petitioner filed objection that land was wrongly
shown as irrigated land & In relevant khasra for
the Fasli Years 1378, 1379 and 1380 petitioners'
land has been shown as un-irrigated and single
crop land - Held - neither the prescribed
authority nor the appellate authority has
considered the khasras of relevant years i.e.
1378 to 1380 Fasli, which is required to be
considered - Impugned order quashed

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ram Autar Singh Vs Addl. Commissioner
(Administration) & anr., 1995 (2) AWC 1115

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners, who are the sons of
Lodhey Ram, the original tenure holder,
impugning the order dated 31.8.1995 and
30.9.1997
passed
by
the
prescribed
authority and the appellate authority under
the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (For
short 'the Act, 1960').

2. Notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act, 1960 was issued to the father of the
petitioners. In CLH Form-3 annexed with
the notice, area of 7.25 acres in terms of the
irrigated land was proposed to be declared
as surplus. Father of the petitioners filed
objection against the said notice. One of the
prime objection was that land of the father
of the petitioners was un-irrigated and it
was not an irrigated land and in respect of
Plot Nos.306, 307, 308, 321, 328 and 329,
it was wrongly shown as irrigated land.

3. During the pendency of the
proceedings
before
the
prescribed
authority, father of the petitioners died.