# Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 620
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18084 of 2022
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52263
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Land Holdings Act, 1960 - An adult son and
a 'mother', both of whom are tenure-holders,
would not constitute a family. Under Section
3(7) of the Act, 'family' in relation to a tenureholder means the tenure-holder himself or
herself, their spouse (excluding a judicially
separated spouse), minor sons, and minor
daughters (excluding married daughters). Under
Section 3(17) of the Act, a 'tenure-holder' is
defined as a person who holds a holding but
does not include: (a) a woman whose husband
is a tenure-holder, or (b) a minor child whose
father or mother is a tenure-holder. A conjoint
reading of the definition of 'family' concerning a
tenure-holder and the definition of a 'tenureholder' under Sections 3(7) and 3(17) of the Act
makes it clear that an adult son, as defined
under Section 3(11-A) of the Act, and a
'mother',
both
tenure-holders,
would
not
constitute a family under Section 3(7) (Para 19).

B. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 169 -
compulsory registration of a will - Section
169 of the Act of 1950 amended by U.P.
Act No. 27 of 2004, w.e.f. 23.08.2004. Prior
to amendment S. 169 required that all Wills
must be in writing and attested by two persons.
Prior to the amendment, there was no
requirement for registration. Issue : If a Will
that was executed prior to the amendment by
U.P. Act No.27 of 2004 without registration and
perfectly valid, but by time succession opened
out with the death of the testator, the
requirement
of
registration
had
been
introduced, would be valid or not ? Held: A Will
that was validly executed, would not be
rendered invalid for non-registration because
succession opened out after the U.P. Act No.27
of 2004 had come into operation. The provisions
of sub-Section (3) of Section 169 of the Act of
1950,
to
the
extent
that
they
require
compulsory registration of a will, have been
declared ultra vires and void in Pramila Tiwari v.
Anil Kumar Mishra and others, 2024 SCC OnLine
All 1588 (Para 25, 26, 28).

C. Ranjeet Singh and his mother, Smt. Surjeet
Kaur, were independent tenure-holders with
agricultural holdings. Ranjeet Singh had 6.970
hectares of land, while Smt. Surjeet Kaur had
1.855 hectares. Surjeet Kaur bequeathed her
holding of 1.855 hectares to her three married
granddaughters via an unregistered Will dated
14.07.2004. Prescribed Authority found that
Surjeet
Kaur's
Will,
made
to
her
granddaughters, was an attempt to circumvent
the ceiling limits of the Act. Held :Ranjeet Singh
and his mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur were not a
family for the purpose of application of ceiling to
their holdings by clubbing them. Their holdings
would have to be separately reckoned for the
purpose of the Act. Ranjeet Singh had a total
7 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
621
holding of 6.970 hectares whereas Surjeet Kaur
had a holding of 1.855 hectares. There was no
need or motive to escape the clutches of the Act
by resort to a devise of Smt. Surjeet Kaur's
agricultural holding in her granddaughters'
favour. The finding of the Authorities below that
the Will was executed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur to
escape the clutches of the Act, is entirely illfounded. (Para 17)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited : -

## Text

620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation is not sustainable in law and
is thereby rejected.

19. The writ petition is allowed.

20. A mandamus is issued to NHAI to
make available compensation amount to the
competent authority for being paid to the
petitioner and other affected persons in
accordance with law within a period of four
weeks from the date of communication of
the instant order.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 620
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 18084 of 2022
And
Writ C No. 18087 of 2022

Ranjeet Singh ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Subodh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - An adult son and
a 'mother', both of whom are tenure-holders,
would not constitute a family. Under Section
3(7) of the Act, 'family' in relation to a tenureholder means the tenure-holder himself or
herself, their spouse (excluding a judicially
separated spouse), minor sons, and minor
daughters (excluding married daughters). Under
Section 3(17) of the Act, a 'tenure-holder' is
defined as a person who holds a holding but
does not include: (a) a woman whose husband
is a tenure-holder, or (b) a minor child whose
father or mother is a tenure-holder. A conjoint
reading of the definition of 'family' concerning a
tenure-holder and the definition of a 'tenureholder' under Sections 3(7) and 3(17) of the Act
makes it clear that an adult son, as defined
under Section 3(11-A) of the Act, and a
'mother',
both
tenure-holders,
would
not
constitute a family under Section 3(7) (Para 19).

B. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 169 -
compulsory registration of a will - Section
169 of the Act of 1950 amended by U.P.
Act No. 27 of 2004, w.e.f. 23.08.2004. Prior
to amendment S. 169 required that all Wills
must be in writing and attested by two persons.
Prior to the amendment, there was no
requirement for registration. Issue : If a Will
that was executed prior to the amendment by
U.P. Act No.27 of 2004 without registration and
perfectly valid, but by time succession opened
out with the death of the testator, the
requirement
of
registration
had
been
introduced, would be valid or not ? Held: A Will
that was validly executed, would not be
rendered invalid for non-registration because
succession opened out after the U.P. Act No.27
of 2004 had come into operation. The provisions
of sub-Section (3) of Section 169 of the Act of
1950,
to
the
extent
that
they
require
compulsory registration of a will, have been
declared ultra vires and void in Pramila Tiwari v.
Anil Kumar Mishra and others, 2024 SCC OnLine
All 1588 (Para 25, 26, 28).

C. Ranjeet Singh and his mother, Smt. Surjeet
Kaur, were independent tenure-holders with
agricultural holdings. Ranjeet Singh had 6.970
hectares of land, while Smt. Surjeet Kaur had
1.855 hectares. Surjeet Kaur bequeathed her
holding of 1.855 hectares to her three married
granddaughters via an unregistered Will dated
14.07.2004. Prescribed Authority found that
Surjeet
Kaur's
Will,
made
to
her
granddaughters, was an attempt to circumvent
the ceiling limits of the Act. Held :Ranjeet Singh
and his mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur were not a
family for the purpose of application of ceiling to
their holdings by clubbing them. Their holdings
would have to be separately reckoned for the
purpose of the Act. Ranjeet Singh had a total
7 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
621
holding of 6.970 hectares whereas Surjeet Kaur
had a holding of 1.855 hectares. There was no
need or motive to escape the clutches of the Act
by resort to a devise of Smt. Surjeet Kaur's
agricultural holding in her granddaughters'
favour. The finding of the Authorities below that
the Will was executed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur to
escape the clutches of the Act, is entirely illfounded. (Para 17)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited : -

1. St. of U.P. Vs Special Addl. Distt. & Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad & ors., 1984 All LJ 560

2. Gyanendra Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2007
(10) ADJ 279

3. Jahan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2017 SCC
OnLine All 3368

4. Pramila Tiwari Vs Anil Kumar Mishra & ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine All 1588

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. By this judgment, we propose to
decide the present writ petition and
connected Writ-C No.18087 of 2022 for
reason that both the writ petitions relate to
the same land, declared surplus under the
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 in proceedings,
taken by the State against the same parties.
And, of
course,
there
are
common
questions of fact and law involved in both
causes.

2. Since Writ-C No.18084 of 2022
was heard as the leading case, we propose
to notice facts from the records of the said
case.

3. This writ petition is directed against
an
order
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority-Ceiling/
Additional
Collector
(Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit dated
September the 16th, 2014 passed in Case
No.5 of 2008-09, under Section 10(2) of
the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, 'the
Act'), declaring land surplus under the Act
in the petitioner's hands to the extent of
1.525 hectares. Also, under challenge is an
appellate order passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly
Division, Bareilly dated 19th May, 2022,
dismissing the petitioner's appeal under
Section 13 of the Act and affirming the
order passed by the Prescribed Authority,
last mentioned.

4. The facts giving rise to this petition
are these:

Ranjeet Singh and his mother,
Smt. Surjeet Kaur were two tenure-holders,
who had agricultural holdings. Whereas
Ranjeet Singh had a total of 6.970 hectares
of land, his mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur had
a holding of 1.855 hectares. These holdings
were bhumidhari with transferable rights
and situate in the revenue villages of
Baharua and Tondarpur Saharai, Pargana
Pilibhit, Tehsil Sadar, District Pilibhit. As it
appears, both the mother and son were
independent tenure-holders and while in
possession of their respective holdings, no
proceedings for determination of surplus
under the Act were drawn against them. It
is, in fact, the petitioner's case that Ranjeet
Singh and his mother, Surjeet Kaur were
independent tenure-holders in their own
right, who held land independent of each
other within the permissible ceiling limits.

5. The genesis of the lis commenced
when Ranjeet Singh's mother, Surjeet Kaur
bequeathed her entire holding of 1.855
hectares to her three granddaughters, all
married women, to wit, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur
wife of Kuldeep Singh, Smt. Rajwant Kaur
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wife of Jaswant Singh and Smt. Lakhvar
Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh, all daughters
of Ranjeet Singh. This bequest was made
by means of an unregistered Will dated
14.07.2004.
Smt.
Surjeet
Kaur,
the
testatrix, died on 16.01.2005. The three
legatees under the will, to wit, Smt. Gurjeet
Kaur, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Lakhvar
Kaur
made
an
application,
seeking
mutation of their names, on the basis of the
last mentioned Will as succession opened
out in terms thereof.

6. The Naib Tehsildar, Nuria, District
Pilibhit, before whom the mutation matter
came up on the basis of the will, granted it
vide order dated 18.05.2005. The record
would show that after registration of the
case
on
the
Naib
Tehsildar's
file,
proceedings were duly advertised in order
to put to notice any one, who might hold
interest in the property, subject matter of
mutation and wish to object. There was no
objection. Treating the mutation matter,
therefore, as 'non-contentious', the Naib
Tehsildar
granted
it
after
recording
necessary
evidence.
This
resulted
in
expunction of the name of Smt. Surjeet
Kaur and mutation in favour of Smt.
Gurjeet Kaur, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt.
Lakhvar Kaur.

7. On the 18th of August, 2006, the
Halqa Lekhpal for Tondarpur made an
application to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar,
District Pilibhit pointing out that the
mutation order passed by the Naib
Tehsildar, last mentioned, on 18.05.2005
was one founded on an unregistered will,
and, therefore, entirely illegal. He said that
on the date the succession opened out, an
unregistered Will relating to agricultural
land was not admissible. He, therefore,
prayed that the mutation case be restored to
file and determined afresh on merits. The
Tehsildar,
entertaining
the
Lekhpal's
restoration application, called for papers of
the decided matter from the record room,
put parties to notice and after hearing them,
by an order dated 22.09.2006, allowed the
restoration
application,
restoring
the
mutation case. The Tehsildar held that the
legatees were not entitled under the
unregistered Will dated 14.07.2004 in view
of the amendment to Section 169 of the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act
of 1950) w.e.f. 23.08.2004, which made
bequest of tenure land by a bhumidhar
compulsorily registerable. The Tehsildar,
therefore, held in favour of the State with a
finding that on the date of demise of the
testatrix, the provisions of Section 169 of
the Act of 1950 stood amended, mandating
a Will relating to tenure land compulsorily
registerable. The Tehsildar vide order dated
22.12.2008, therefore, held that Smt.
Gurjeet Kaur, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt.
Lakhvar Kaur were not entitled to be
mutated on the basis of the unregistered
will, and, Smt. Surjeet Kaur's holding
would devolve by intestate succession
under Section 171 of the Act of 1950 upon
Ranjeet Singh, her son. He directed
mutation in favour of Ranjeet Singh,
expunging the names of the legatees. The
Tehsildar forwarded a copy of his order to
the Naib Tehsildar with a remark that the
total holding now in the hands of Ranjeet
Singh be inquired into to find out if it
exceeds the ceiling limit under the Act. It
was added that if it was above the ceiling
limit, the matter be placed before the
Ceiling Authority.

8. In the meantime, in a related
development, the order of the Tehsildar
dated 22.12.2008, declining mutation, was
challenged by the legatees, Gurjeet Kaur
and others in appeal carried to the Sub-
7 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623
Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pilibhit under
Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act. The
appeal aforesaid, that was registered as
Appeal No.14 of 2008-09 on the file of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pilibhit, was
dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2009. The
legatees did not relent. They carried the
matter in revision to the Commissioner,
Bareilly Division, Bareilly. The Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly
Division, Bareilly, before whom Revision
No.83 of 2010 came up, allowed the same,
set aside the orders impugned passed by the
two Mutation Authorities below and
granted mutation in favour of the legatees.
In reaching his conclusions, the Additional
Commissioner, who allowed the revision,
thought that the Will in this case being one
dated 14.07.2004, that is to say, before the
Amending Act, amending the provisions of
Section 169 of the Act came into force,
would continue to be governed by the
unamended law, which never required
registration.

9. The Revisional Court held that the
amendment
had
no
retrospective
application and the fact that Surjeet Kaur
died after the Amending Act came into
force, would be of no consequence,
inasmuch as the bequest was made while
the law was still unamended. Mutation
being granted in favour of the legatees, it
was duly carried out in the revenue records
and the Additional Commissioner's order
was never challenged by the State by
invoking appellate or review procedures.
While the Mutation Authority accepted the
testamentary disposition, the Tehsildar, the
Lekhpal
and
the
Additional
District
Magistrate made internal reports dated
31.01.2009, 04.02.2009 and 25.03.2009, on
the basis of which the Prescribed Authority
under the Act issued two separate notices,
both dated 30.04.2009, one to Ranjeet
Singh and the other to Rajwant Kaur. The
notice to Rajwant Kaur related to some
property, she had purchased independently.
Another set of three notices, all dated
11.07.2011, were issued to the three
daughters of Ranjeet Singh, to wit, the
three legatees under the Will, under Section
10(2) of the Act, clubbing the entire
holdings of Ranjeet Singh and Smt. Surjeet
Kaur,
bequeathed
to
her
three
granddaughters, proposing to declare a
surplus. On the 9th of July, 2009 and 6th of
October, 2009, objections were filed by
both sets of tenure-holders, that is to say,
Ranjeet Singh on one hand and the other by
the three legatees. It appears that at the
hearing of the matter before the Prescribed
Authority, Ranjeet Singh alone produced
evidence, but the legatees, after putting in
their objections, did not participate. The
Prescribed Authority, before whom the
matter was registered as Case No.5 of
2008-09, proceeded to frame the following
issues (translated into English from Hindi):

"1- Whether the land in dispute is
irrigated, if yes, its effect?

2- Whether the deceased tenureholder, Surjeet Kaur had bequeathed her
holding on 14.07.2004 in favour of Smt.
Gurjeet Kaur, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt.
Lakhvar Kaur, if yes, its effect?

3- Whether Smt. Gurjeet Kaur,
Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Lakhvar Kaur
are bhumidhar of the late Smt. Surjeet
Kaur's holding on the basis of her will, if
yes, its effect?

4- Whether the notice issued
under the Ceiling Act is liable to be
revoked, if yes, its effect?"

10. Issue No.1 was answered in the
manner that the land in dispute is irrigated,
holding in favour of the State. The second
issue was also answered in favour of the
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State in the affirmative with the Prescribed
Authority holding that the Will was
executed on 14.07.2004, when the Act was
in force w.e.f. 24.01.1971, which rendered
the Will bad being in violation of the Act.
It was further held that the testatrix, Smt.
Surjeet Kaur had a son Ranjeet Singh and
the fact that in his lifetime a Will was
executed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur, would
show that the testamentary disposition was
one
made
in
order
to
evade
the
consequences of 'ceiling' under the Act.
The third issue was also decided in the
State's favour, holding that the Will being
one made on 14.07.2004, after the Act had
come into effect on 24.01.1971, clearly
showed that in the presence of Surjeet
Kaur's
son
i.e.
Ranjeet
Singh,
the
testamentary disposition was made in order
to escape the consequences of ceiling under
the Act. Issue No.4 was also decided in the
State's favour, holding that the entire land
held by Ranjeet Singh, that is to say, his
own together with that inherited from his
mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur, would add to a
total area of 8.825 hectares irrigated land.
Ranjeet Singh had the right to retain within
ceiling limits under the Act up to a total
area of 7.300 hectares with the area of
1.525 hectares being surplus land, which
would vest in the State.

11.
The
Prescribed
Authority,
therefore, declared the following the land
surplus in Ranjeet Singh's hands:

tenureholder's
name
Village
Gata
No.
Additional
declared
irrigated
land
Ranjeet
Singh s/o
Suvendra
Singh
Tondarpur
Saharai,
Pargana &
District
Pilibhit
73
1.339 hect.
-
Village
Baharua
105
0.186 hect.
-
Village
Tondarpur
Saharai

12. Two appeals were carried from the
order
of
the
Prescribed
Authority,
impugned dated 16.09.2014 under Section
13 of the Act to the Commissioner of the
Division. Appeal No. C20141200001222
was preferred by Ranjeet Singh whereas
that preferred by the three legatees,
Rajwant Kaur and others, was numbered as
Appeal No. C20141200001239. An interim
stay pending appeal was granted by the
Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Bareilly Division, Bareilly vide order dated
14.10.2014. Later on, the appeal was not
decided for a long time and the interim
order came to an end, threatening the
petitioner's possession. Accordingly, the
petitioner moved Writ-C No.22123 of
2021, where this Court, while disposing of
the writ petition, directed expedited hearing
of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate
Authority and further ordered that for a
period of three months or till disposal of
the appeal, whichever is earlier, the interim
order granted on 13.10.2014 shall continue.
The
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Bareilly
Division,
Bareilly, before whom both the appeals
came up for hearing on 19.05.2022,
proceeded to dismiss the appeal and
affirmed the Prescribed Authority.

13. Aggrieved, the petitioner has
instituted the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

14. On 05.07.2022, when this petition
came up for admission, a notice of motion
was issued and an interim injunction
granted, directing parties to maintain status
quo as on date as to title, nature and
possession. The writ petition preferred by
the legatees, by an order of the same date,
7 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
was connected to the present writ petition,
and an interim order passed in identical
terms.

15. A counter affidavit was filed
effectively on behalf of respondent No.2 on
29th November, 2022, to which a rejoinder
was also filed. On 05.01.2024, when this
writ petition came up for admission before
the Court, the parties having exchanged
affidavits, it was admitted to hearing,
which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was
reserved.

16. Heard Mr. Udit Chandra, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal
Ravi
Singh,
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel along with Ms. Monika Arya,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
on behalf of the State.

17. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, we are of opinion that the
finding of the Authorities below that the
Will was executed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur to
escape the clutches of the Act, is entirely
ill-founded. The land that Smt. Surjeet
Kaur held or whatever was Ranjeet Singh's
holding before Surjeet Kaur's demise, was
apparently well within the ceiling. It would
have been a device to escape clutches of
the Act, if it was a case that the land in
dispute in the hands of Ranjeet Singh and
his mother was to be clubbed and regarded
as one unit for the purpose of applying the
prescribed ceiling under the Act. This is
certainly not the case. Under Section 3(7)
of the Act, 'family' is defined in the
following terms:

"3. Definition.- In this Act,
unless the context otherwise requires-

.......

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

18. Likewise, under Section 3(17) of
the Act, a 'tenure-holder' is defined as
follows:

"(17) "tenure-holder" means a
person who is the holder of a holding, but
except in Chapter III does not include-

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

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

19.
A
conjoint
reading
of
the
definition of 'family' in reference to a
tenure-holder and the definition of a
'tenure-holder' under Section 3(7) and 3(17)
of the Act would spare little doubt that an
adult son, as defined under Section 3(11-A)
of the Act and a 'mother', both of whom are
tenure-holders, would not constitute a
family under Section 3(7). In this case,
therefore, while Ranjeet Singh and his
mother, Smt. Surjeet Kaur were alive, they
were not a family for the purpose of
application of ceiling to their holdings by
clubbing them. Their holdings would have
to be separately reckoned for the purpose of
the Act and when so done, Ranjeet Singh
had a total holding of 6.970 hectares
whereas Surjeet Kaur had a holding of
1.855 hectares. Therefore, there is nothing
to infer that during her lifetime, Smt.
Surjeet Kaur, or her son, had any need or
motive to escape the clutches of the Act by
resort to a devise of Smt. Surjeet Kaur's
agricultural holding in her granddaughters'
favour.

20. It has also been emphasized during
the hearing by Mr. Udit Chandra that there
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were no proceedings under the Act pending
either against Smt. Surjeet Kaur or Ranjeet
Singh at the time when she executed the
Will in her granddaughters' favour. This
also would show that the Will was not
executed for any extraneous purpose, or so
speak, escape clutches of the Act.

21. In support of the contention that an
adult's son's holdings and those of his
mother, who also is a tenure-holder, are not
to
be
clubbed
for
the
purpose
of
determining
ceiling
under
the
Act,
reference may be made to State of U.P. v.
Special Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge,
Farrukhabad and others, 1984 All LJ
560. The facts in Special Addl. Distt. &
Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad (supra) can
best be appreciated by a reference to
paragraph No.5 of the report, where these
have been succinctly set out in the
following words:

"5. The controversy is a short
one. Aditya Narain Singh's father Roop
Singh was possessed of landed property
including some Sir and Khudkasht. He died
in 1950 leaving behind his son Aditya
Narain and his widow Smt. Davendra
Kumari, who is respondent No. 4 in this
petition. A contention was raised before the
Prescribed Authority that in the Sir and
Khudkasht which was left by the late Sri
Roop Singh, his widow Davendra Kumari
had an equal share along with her son
Aditya Narain Singh. This contention was
based on Hindu Women's Right to Property
Act, 1937 as amended by the U.P. Act No.
11 of 1942. This contention was rejected by
the Prescribed Authority. But was accepted
by the appellate court."

22. In answering the issue whether the
property of an adult son and a mother could
be clubbed together under the Act, in the
aforesaid authority, it was held by M.P.
Mehrotra, J.:

"6.
Learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel contended that the mother's share
should have been clubbed with the share of
her son Aditya Narain, who was treated as
a tenure-holder. He invited my attention to
the definition of 'family' in S. 3(7) and to
the definition of 'tenure-holder' in S. 3(17)
of the Act. In my view, this contention is not
tenable. Learned counsel emphasized that
in S. 3(17) the expression used in cl. (a) is
'woman' and not the 'wife'. In my view,
this is really not decisive because the
further phraseology used is "a woman
whose husband is a tenure-holder". This
makes it clear that by the expression
'woman' what is meant is the wife of the
tenure-holder-husband. In S. 3(7) the
definition of the family is such that the
mother of a tenure-holder is not a member
of the family. The clubbing which takes
place under S. 5(3) of the Act is with
reference to the family. Therefore, the
contention that the mother's share also
should have been clubbed with the tenureholder sons' share is not acceptable. The
appellate court's judgment, in my view,
suffers from no error of law, much less an
apparent error of law. There is no want of
jurisdiction in the said judgment."

23. Special Addl. Distt. & Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad was followed by this
Court in Gyanendra Kumar v. State of
U.P. and others, 2007 (10) ADJ 279.
These authorities clearly fortify the view
that we have taken.

24. So far as the right of Smt. Surjeet
Kaur
to
execute
a
Will
in
her
granddaughters' favour is concerned, there
was absolutely no restriction imposed by
the Act forbearing her from doing so,
7 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
627
inasmuch as her holding was well within
the ceiling limit when she made the
bequest.

25. The only other issue that survives
for consideration is: If the will, that was
executed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur in favour of
her granddaughters, was valid in law,
though
unregistered?
Prior
to
the
amendment to Section 169 of the Act of
1950 by U.P. Act No.27 of 2004 w.e.f.
23.08.2004, all that was required by subSection (3) of Section 169 was that the Will
'be in writing', and 'attested by two
persons'. There was no requirement of
registration. This was brought about by
U.P. Act No.27 of 2004. Now, the Will
here is dated 14.07.2004, that is to say, well
before 23.08.2004, when U.P. Act No.27 of
2004 made registration compulsory. To this
Court's understanding, the Will when it was
made was a valid document and within the
powers of the testatrix to execute it. On the
day it was executed, it did not require
registration. The amendment is without
cavil, prospective in operation and so far as
the Will goes, it was a concluded document
on the day it was executed. It was valid by
the law as then in force.

26. The fact that it was a Will not a
deed, and, therefore, of no value or even
imbued with life so long as the author was
living, would make no difference to the
validity of the testament that would be
galvanized to life after the testatrix's
demise. The question if on the date the
testatrix, as is the case here, died, U.P. Act
No.27 of 2004 had come into operation,
would be of no consequence to the validity
of the will. There has been some confusion
on the issue if a Will that was executed
prior to the amendment by U.P. Act No.27
of 2004 without registration and perfectly
valid, but by time succession opened out
with the death of the testator, the
requirement of registration had been
introduced, would be valid or not. We do
not think that by any principle a Will that
was validly executed, would be rendered
invalid
for
non-registration
because
succession opened out after the U.P. Act
No.27 of 2004 had come into operation.
The reason is that execution of a Will is
one thing and opening out of succession
completely different. As already said a Will
is not a deed. It is a letter from the deceased
that alters the mode of succession under the
law. The law requiring execution of wills,
in a particular mode, is about how that
testament is to be executed. Once executed,
it remains the way it has been made to be
given effect to by the executors after the
testator's demise. Of course, the testator
may change his Will more than once every
day, every hour, or as much frequently as
he can withstand the ordeal. It is the last
Will and testament, according to which
succession would open out after the
testator's demise. All that the law requires
is that the Will or testament must be
executed in accordance with law, whatever
statute prescribes it. It is in that sense that
this Court remarked that execution of a
Will is quite different from the opening of
rights under it. Section 169(3) of the Act of
1950 speaks only about the execution of the
Will with an added requirement as to
registration, which need not be there in
case of other wills.

27. Therefore, if on the date when the
Will here was executed, the provisions of
Section 169(3) as these then stood did not
require registration, it does not matter at all
that when succession actually opened out,
registration had become imperative. We are
of opinion that the remarks of Sunita
Agarwal, J. in Jahan Singh v. State of
U.P. and others, 2017 SCC OnLine All
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3368 in paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 28 of the
report, when read as a whole, do not at all
intend to say that a Will validly executed
before the Amending Act came into force,
would become invalid, if on the date
succession opened out, the amendment
requiring registration had come into force.
There is no doubt some confusion because
of the observations in paragraph No.27, but
that is amply clarified by the remarks in
paragraph No.26 and the last sentence in
paragraph No.27, which says that in case of
non-registration, "genuineness of the Will,
therefore, becomes doubtful". If the learned
Judge had intended to say that an
unregistered Will executed before the
enforcement of U.P. Act No.27 of 2004,
where succession opened out, after the
amendment would be invalid for want of
registration, it would not have been
remarked that the genuineness of the Will
is doubtful. Genuineness relates to probity
of the document and not its admissibility
for want of registration.

28. The question of the amendment
being prospective or retrospective, in any
case, has now become an academic issue,
because a Division Bench of this Court in
Pramila Tiwari v. Anil Kumar Mishra
and others, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1588
has held it void. The provisions of subSection (3) of Section 169 of the Act of
1950, to the extent that these provide for
compulsory registration of a will, have
been declared ultra vires and void in
Pramila Tiwari (supra) in terms of the
following order:

"36. In view of the above
exposition of law and in view of what we
have discussed above in this judgment, we
hold sub-Section (3) of Section 169 of Act
of 1950, in so far as it requires a Will to be
compulsorily registered, to be repugnant to
Section 17 read with Section 40 of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 and hence we
hold the amendment of Section 169(3) of
the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act to that extent void.

37. Thus, our answer, to the
question framed, is that sub-Section (3) of
Section 169 having been declared as void
to the extent it provides for registration of
Will, the Wills in State of Uttar Pradesh are
not required to be registered and a Will for
its non registration will not be void whether
before or after the U.P. Amendment Act,
2004."

29. Thus, the provision of sub-Section
(3) of Section 169 of the Act, providing for
the compulsorily registration of a Will
relating to agricultural tenure, stands erased
from the statute book and regarded never to
have been enacted. Therefore, reliance
placed by the Authorities below upon
provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section
169 requiring compulsory registration of
the Will executed by Smt. Surjeet Kaur,
and on that basis, holding her property to
be inherited by her son, Ranjeet Singh and
not the legatees under the will, to wit, her
granddaughters, has to be held manifestly
illegal. The Will has not been regarded by
any one not duly proved nor any one has
raised the issue. Therefore, in terms of Smt.
Surjeet Kaur's will, her holdings must be
held
to
have
passed
on
to
her
granddaughters, to wit, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur,
Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Lakhvar Kaur.
If the holdings of Smt. Surjeet Kaur have
passed on to the legatees under her Will
and not to her son Ranjeet Singh by
succession, as held by the Authorities
below, Ranjeet Singh, would have his
holdings well within the ceiling limit of
7.300 hectares, assuming that all of it is
irrigated
land.
The
inescapable
consequence,
therefore,
is
that
the
7 All. A.K. Construction Company Vs. Union of India & Ors.
629
impugned orders cannot be sustained and
must be quashed.

30. In the result, both the writ petitions
succeed and are allowed. The impugned
orders dated 16.09.2014 passed by the
Prescribed Authority-Ceiling/ Additional
Collector (Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit
and the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Bareilly
Division,
Bareilly are hereby quashed.

31. Costs easy.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 629
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 20223 OF 2024

A.K. Construction Company ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sr. Advocate, Sri
Devansh Mishra, Sri Vibhu Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahendra Pratap

A.
Contract
Law
-
Blacklisting
-
Termination of Contract - Jurisdiction -
Maintainability - Show cause notice should
not be pre-meditative in nature and a writ
petition would be maintainable against
such a show cause notice. (Para 5, 9)

A show cause notice cannot be read
hypertechnically, and it is to be read
reasonably. And the person who is subject
to it must get the impression that he will
get an effective opportunity to rebut the
allegations contained in the show cause
notice and prove his innocence. (Para 11,
12)

A writ court refrains from interfering with such
notices unless they appear to be issued without
jurisdiction. However, there is an exception to
the general rule. When a show cause notice is
issued with clear pre-meditation, suggesting
that the authority has already made up its mind
regarding the outcome, a writ petition can be
justified. This is because a subsequent hearing
in such cases is unlikely to be impartial or
productive. Once a decision is effectively predetermined, further hearings do not serve their
intended purpose. This approach ensures that
the principles of natural justice and fair hearing
are upheld. (Para 10)

(1) It is a common principle of law that
unless an accusation is made in the show
cause notice, a finding with respect to the
same cannot be recorded on the same in
the final order. The principle behind the same
is that a person who is accused of a particular
act must be given a chance to defend himself
for the same. The authority cannot be allowed
to change the goal post while passing the order.
(Para 23)

There was a charge in the show cause notice
that the employee of the petitioner had taken
money, whereas the finding in the impugned
order is that an unauthorised person who was
not an employee of the petitioner had taken
money in the precinct of the fee plaza. The
offence that emerges from the impugned order
now is that the petitioner allowed unauthorised
people to be present in the precinct of the fee
plaza. There are similar findings w.r.t. other
allegations made in the show cause notice in the
impugned order. (Para 22, 24)

(2) The incidents mentioned did not take
place in the same month, and therefore,
the application of Clause 35(2) r/w Clause
20 of the terms and conditions appear to
be illegal as Clause 20 requires more than
three defaults in the same month. The
show cause notice, is pre-determined and the
impugned order travels beyond the scope of the
said show cause notice. (Para 25)