# Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 245
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1313 of 2022
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarfaraj-ahmad-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48190
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4 B - correctness of the list
of members of the General Body of the
society - Documents to be examined - No
bar in the Registrar going through other
documents, apart from the documents, as
mentioned in Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
in order to examine the correctness of the
list of members (Para 18)

Whenever a list is submitted or there is any
change in the list of members and any objection
is raised or otherwise, Registrar has to prima
facie satisfy himself that change has been made
in accordance with provisions of bye-laws and
prima facie genuine - Registrar has to examine
the correctness of the list of members on the
basis of the register of members, minutes book,
cash book, receipt book of membership fee and
bank pass book of the society - documents
which are required to be examined by the
Registrar have been indicated but the legislature
in its wisdom has not used the word "only" so
as to preclude the Registrar from going into
other documents that may be relevant for
arriving
at
a
finding
pertaining
to
the
correctness of the list - Registrar may also
examine agenda, minutes of meeting and other
relevant steps taken by Society - while making
the inquiry u/s 4 B of the Act, 1860, the
Registrar is not supposed to act as a post office
rather is supposed to act administratively by
applying his mind on the facts and documents
placed before him - inquiry made by the
Registrar is not final inasmuch as the aggrieved
party can always take up the matter before a
competent Court. (Para 17, 18)

Twenty eight petitioners were inducted as
members by the society - list of the members
was submitted in the office of the Registrar for
registration
but
instead
of
it
being
registered/admitted objections were invited -
Various objections were raised by various
persons to the induction of the petitioners as
members - By the impugned order petitioners
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were not found to be validly inducted members
- Impugned order challenged on the ground
that the Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction
in examining more documents than prescribed
as u/s 4-B & no opportunity of hearing had been
given - Held - No infirmity committed by the
Registrar in having gone beyond the documents
as contemplated under Section 4 B of the Act,

## Text

3 All. Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
245

21. In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu
and another, the Supreme Court had
observed that amendment can be allowed at
any stage and the question of delay in
moving amendment application should be
decided not by calculating the period from
the date of institution of Suit alone but by
reference to the stage to which the hearing
of the Suit had proceeded. Pre-trial
amendment are allowed very liberally than
those which are sought to be made after
commencement of trial or after conclusion
thereof.

22. This Court has perused the
amendment application and finds that the
observations made by the learned trial court
regarding the fact that it would not be just
and proper to allow such amendment
application at such belated stage to be
rightly rejected and a judicious exercise of
its power.

23. This Court having perused the
said judgments of the Supreme Court finds
no observations therein which would be in
favour of the petitioner.

24. The petition stands dismissed as
devoid of merits.
----------
(2022)03ILR A245
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 1313 of 2022

Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajeya Mishra, Yogendra Kumar
Mishra

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4 B - correctness of the list
of members of the General Body of the
society - Documents to be examined - No
bar in the Registrar going through other
documents, apart from the documents, as
mentioned in Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
in order to examine the correctness of the
list of members (Para 18)

Whenever a list is submitted or there is any
change in the list of members and any objection
is raised or otherwise, Registrar has to prima
facie satisfy himself that change has been made
in accordance with provisions of bye-laws and
prima facie genuine - Registrar has to examine
the correctness of the list of members on the
basis of the register of members, minutes book,
cash book, receipt book of membership fee and
bank pass book of the society - documents
which are required to be examined by the
Registrar have been indicated but the legislature
in its wisdom has not used the word "only" so
as to preclude the Registrar from going into
other documents that may be relevant for
arriving
at
a
finding
pertaining
to
the
correctness of the list - Registrar may also
examine agenda, minutes of meeting and other
relevant steps taken by Society - while making
the inquiry u/s 4 B of the Act, 1860, the
Registrar is not supposed to act as a post office
rather is supposed to act administratively by
applying his mind on the facts and documents
placed before him - inquiry made by the
Registrar is not final inasmuch as the aggrieved
party can always take up the matter before a
competent Court. (Para 17, 18)

Twenty eight petitioners were inducted as
members by the society - list of the members
was submitted in the office of the Registrar for
registration
but
instead
of
it
being
registered/admitted objections were invited -
Various objections were raised by various
persons to the induction of the petitioners as
members - By the impugned order petitioners
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were not found to be validly inducted members
- Impugned order challenged on the ground
that the Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction
in examining more documents than prescribed
as u/s 4-B & no opportunity of hearing had been
given - Held - No infirmity committed by the
Registrar in having gone beyond the documents
as contemplated under Section 4 B of the Act,
1860. (Para 19)

B. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4 B - opportunity of
hearing prior to holding membership to
be invalid - Held - in the instant case,
the list of members was never admitted
rather from day one, the objections were
filed against the list of members - once
the list of members was never accepted
by the Registrar, as such it cannot be
said that the petitioners acquired any
vested
right
for
being
given
an
opportunity of hearing. - The society, of
which the petitioners claims themselves
to be a members, was duly represented
and
had
also
been
heard
by
the
competent authority prior to passing the
impugned order (Para 19)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarvendra Veer Vikram Singh & ors. Vs St. of
U.P & ors. 2017 (8) ADJ 671

2. Shiv Narain Agarwal & ors. Vs St. of U.P &
ors. Misc. Single No. 16656 of 2021 decided on
06.08.2021

3. Shitla Prasad Tiwari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.2018 (36) LCD 93

4. Babita Verma, Manager Kisan Ucchtar & ors.
Vs St. of U.P & ors. Writ-C No. 856 of 2022
decided on 14.02.2022

5. Syed Akhtar Hasan Rizvi Vs St.of U.P. & ors.
Special Appeal No. 261 & 263 of 2015 decided
on 07.01.2016

6. T.P. Singh Vs Registrar/Assistant Registrar,
Firms Societies & Chits, Teliyarganj & ors.
(2019) 1 UPLBEC 209
7. A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar Vs District Registrar
(G), Kozhikode & ors. (2004) 11 SCC 247

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
counsel
appearing for the State-respondents and Sri
S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Yogendra Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for the 4.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the of impugned order dated
11.02.2022, passed by opposite party no. 2
contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite party no. 2 to
finalize the list of members of the General
Body of the society in view of the
parameters provided in Section 4-B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
include name of petitioners in the final list
of members of the society."

3. The case set forth by the petitioners
is that the last elections of the society were
held on 18.06.2019 of which the result was
declared on 19.06.2019. Copy of the result
has been filed as annexure 4 to the writ
petition. One Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad was
elected as Secretary.

4. Thereafter, it was decided to
induct new members and thus a notice was
issued both in the newspaper as well as
pasted on the notice board of the society
inviting applications. It is contended that
3 All. Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
various
persons
had
applied
for
membership, including the 28 petitioners,
in September, 2019. As per the bye-laws,
the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.
1100/- each for the membership fee (the
membership as per bye-laws being Rs.
500/-).
All
the
applications
for
membership were considered in the
general body meeting held on 28.09.2019,
a copy of which is annexure 13 to the writ
petition.
In
the
meeting
held
on
17.11.2019, the society approved the
induction of the petitioenrs as members.
Considering Clause 21 of the bye-laws and
the secretary being duly authorized as per
bye-laws to carry on all necessary
correspondence, Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad the
Secretary informed the Registrar about the
membership in November, 2019. Certain
objections/complaints were filed by one
Sri Ziya Kauser and Hafiz Anwar along
with other complaints and the Registrar
issued notices to the society to justify the
new membership. It is claimed that the
even
the
petitioners
filed
their
objections/representation
before
the
Registrar
vide
representation
dated
19.01.2022, a copy of which is annexure
30 to the petition. The Registrar thereafter
proceeded to hear the matter and by means
of the impugned order dated 11.02.2022, a
copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ
petition, held that the membership of the
28
petitioners
as
members
is
not
established and has thus not found the 28
petitioners to be validly inducted members
of the society. He has further directed that
the elections be held in the society from
the list of 28 members for which
objections have been invited for the
purpose of correction of any clerical errors
in the list of such members.

5. Being aggrieved, the present
petition has been filed.

6. Raising a challenge to the
impugned order, learned counsel for the
petitioners has primarily indicated three
grounds namely (a) that the Registrar has
patently exceeded his jurisdiction, as
provided under Section 4 B of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1860") in examining more
documents than prescribed inasmuch as the
Registrar
could
only
examine
the
correctness of the list of members on the
parameters and on the basis of documents
as indicated in Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
(b) no opportunity of hearing had been
given to the petitioners while declaring
their membership as invalid and (c) the
decision making process is bad in the eyes
of law. No other ground has been urged or
argued.

7. Elaborating the same, Sri Sharad
Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners
argues that Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
provides that the Registrar has to examine
the correctness of the list of members of
general body of such society on the basis of
the register of members of the general
body, the minutes book thereof, cash book,
receipt book of membership fee and bank
pass book of the society only while in the
present case the respondent authority has
examined various other documents which
do not even come within the ambit of
Section 4 B of the Act, 1860 and thus has
exceeded his jurisdiction and authority
while passing the impugned order and
arriving at a finding that the membership of
the petitioners is improper.

8. So far as no opportunity of hearing
having been granted to the petitioners,
reliance has been placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Sarvendra Veer
Vikram Singh and 33 Ors Vs. State of
U.P and Ors reported in 2017 (8) ADJ 671
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the judgment of this Court in the case
of Shiv Narain Agarwal and ors Vs. State
of U.P and Ors passed in Misc. Single No.
16656 of 2021 decided on 06.08.2021,
copies of which have been filed as
annexurs 35 & 36 to the petition to contend
that the order impugned would be vitiated
for non compliance with principles of
natural justice as no opportunity of hearing
had been given to the petitioners prior to
holding their membership to be invalid.

9. On the other hand, learned
Additional Chief Standing counsel as well
as Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Yogendra Kumar Mishra,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent no. 4 argue that once the dispute
relates to membership of the society, as
such, such dispute can be adjudicated
before the Civil Court and not before this
Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. In
this regard, reliance has been filed on a
Division Bench judgment in the case of
Shitla Prasad Tiwari and Ors Vs. State
of U.P and Ors reported in 2018 (36)
LCD 93 and a judgment of this Court in the
case of Babita Verma, Manager Kisan
Ucchtar and Ors Vs. State of U.P and
Ors passed in Writ-C No. 856 of 2022
decided on 14.02.2022.

10. Sri Kalia, learned Senior
Advocate also argues that a perusal of
the impugned order would indicate that
various disputed questions are involved
and it would be the civil Court which
can go into the said disputed questions
by asking the parties concerned to lead
evidence
and
this
Court
while
exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of Constitution of India may not go
into such disputed questions of fact and
thus prays that the present petition be
dismissed.

11. So far as non grant of opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners is concerned, it
is argued that grant of opportunity of
hearing to the members would not be
required inasmuch as in the judgment of
Sarvendra Veer Vikram Singh (supra)
the list of members that was sent by the
society had been admitted by the Deputy
Registrar while passing a specific order but
in the instant case, the list of members was
never admitted rather from day one, the
objections were filed against the list of
members which has finally culminated in
the passing of the impugned order and thus,
the said judgment would not be applicable
in the facts of the instant case more
particularly when no vested right has
crystallized to the petitioners to claim
membership
as
such,
there
is
no
requirement of any opportunity of hearing
rather an opportunity has duly been given
to the society of which the petitioners claim
to be the members. So far as the judgment
in the case of Shiv Narain Agarwal
(supra) is concerned, it is argued that in the
judgment of Shiv Narain Agarwal (supra)
the earlier judgment of Sarvendra Veer
Vikram Singh (supra) has been followed
without noticing the distinguishing factor
and thus the said judgment would also not
be applicable in the facts of the instant
case.

12. Heard learned counsel appearing
for the contesting parties and perused the
records.

13. At the very outset, the Court gave
an option to Sri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners of
approaching the Civil Court keeping in
view the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Shitla
Prasad Tiwari (supra) and Babita Verma
(supra). To that, Sri Sharad Pathak, learned
3 All. Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
counsel appearing for the petitioners stated
that the petition may be decided on merits
even though when it was indicated to Sri
Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that a decision on merits
may prejudice the case before the Civil
Court also. However, Sri Sharad Pathak,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has insisted upon this Court passing an
order on merits of the case and accordingly,
the Court proceeds to decide the case on
merits.

14. From the arguments as raised by
the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting parties and perusal of records it
is apparent that the 28 petitioners were
inducted as members by the society
concerned. Various objections were raised
by various persons to the induction of the
petitioners as members. It is claimed that
that while inducting the petitioners as
members, they have paid the membership
fee for which a receipt had been issued and
the amount of membership had also been
deposited in the bank account of the society
and all the petitioners were duly approved
and inducted as members in the meeting of
the society convened on 07.11.2019. The
list of the members was than submitted in
the office of the respondent no. 2 for
registration
but
instead
of
it
being
registered/admitted, the objections were
invited and at the same time various
objections were also received and thereafter
the impugned order was passed whereby
the petitioners were not found to be validly
inducted members.

15. The grounds raised in the petition
are primarily (a) that the Registrar has
patently exceeded his jurisdiction as
provided under Section 4 B of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1860") in examining more
documents than prescribed inasmuch as the
Registrar
could
only
examine
the
correctness of the list of members on the
parameters as indicated in Section 4 B of
the Act, 1860 (b) no opportunity of hearing
had been given to the petitioners while
declaring their membership as invalid and
(c) the decision making process is bad in
the eyes of law.

16. So far as ground (a) is concerned,
though Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
provides for the Registrar to examine the
correctness of the list of members on the
basis of the register of members, minutes
book,
cash
book,
receipt
book
of
membership fee and bank pass book of the
society yet while making the inquiry under
Section 4 B of the Act, 1860, the Registrar
is not supposed to act as a post office rather
is supposed to act administratively by
applying his mind on the facts and
documents placed before him. It is not that
the inquiry made by the Registrar is final
inasmuch as the aggrieved party can always
take up the matter before a competent
Court.

17. This aspect of the matter has been
considered by a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Syed Akhtar Hasan
Rizvi v. State of U.P. and others in
Special Appeal No. 261 and 263 of 2015
decided on 07.01.2016. Again, a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of T.P.
Singh Vs. Registrar/Assistant Registrar,
Firms Societies & Chits, Teliyarganj and
Ors reported in (2019) 1 UPLBEC 209
considering the aforesaid judgment of Syed
Akhtar Hasan Rizvi (supra) and also
while placing reliance on the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of A.P. Aboobaker
Musaliar Vs, District Registrar (G),
Kozhikode and Ors reported in (2004) 11
SCC 247 has held as under:-
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. Construing sub-sections (1)
and (2) of Section 4-B of Act, 1860
harmoniously, Court clearly said that
examination of correctness of list if
confined
only
at
the
time
of
registration/renewal,
it
will
exclude
subsequent change in the membership till
next renewal and that will defeat the
purpose that bogus membership dispute
should not stake to obstruct simple
functioning of Society and induct bogus
claim.
Therefore,
if
any
change
in
membership takes place within the period
when next renewal is due, such change is
also to be informed to Registrar and he is
empowered to look into the correctness of
such change. We may notice paras 32 and
33 of the judgment of Division Bench
making
observations
for
harmonious
interpretation of entire Section 4-B of Act,
1860 as under:

"32.
If
the
aforesaid
interpretation is not given in such a
harmonious manner, then the list of
members
filed
at
the
time
of
registration/renewal of the Society will be
there upto the next renewal, but if any
change in the membership takes place
within five years as the renewal of the
Society falls due in five years, then whether
that change is required to be informed to
the Registrar or not. The Registrar will be
clueless and will be lacking information, if
in the meantime, various members in the
General Body are inducted by the Society,
though inducted in accordance with the
provisions contained in the bye-laws. The
Registrar can place as check on illegal
induction in this manner.

33. The rider of one month
imposed in sub-section (2) itself is
indicative of the fact that if there is any
change at any point of time, then the same
should be informed to the Registrar within
a period of one month, and this can be the
only interpretation of subsections (1) and
(2) of Section 4-B of the Act, keeping in
view the statement of objects and reasons,
which states that in order to curve the
menace of fraudulent list being produced
before the Registrar by unscrupulous
persons, a check was required to be placed.
Now the check, which is required to be
placed, is to be placed in a continuous
manner and if it is in piece-meal, then it is
to be of no avail and the intention of the
legislature will stand defeated in regard to
validity of the list of members of the
General Body being submitted before the
Registrar
at
the
time
of
registration/renewal.
The
mischief
is
required to be checked and if it is checked,
then under sub-section (2) of Section 4-B of
the Act, the Society must inform the
Registrar regarding the change in the
membership after the registration/renewal
takes place upto the period of next renewal.
The legislature does not presume vacuum
and if there is any causus omissus, then the
same can be supplied by the Court."

37. Court also observed that in
making inquiry under Section 4-B of Act,
1860, Registrar is not a Post Office but
supposed
to
act
administratively
by
applying his mind on the facts and
documents placed before him. Division
Bench also referred to Supreme Court
judgment in A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v.
District Registrar (G), Kozhikode and
others, (2004) 11 SCC 247 and observed
that when more than one returns are filed
before Registrar, it may not hold an
elaborate enquiry but bound to satisfy
himself prima facie as to which return is
to be accepted. Inquiry made by Registrar
is not final and aggrieved party can always
take up the matter before a Competent
Court.
Court
also
held
that
term
"membership" has been defined under Act,
1860 and it indicates that a member of a
3 All. Sarfaraj Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
Society shall be a person who, having been
admitted therein according to rules and
regulations, paid subscription, signed the
roll or list of members and has not resigned
in accordance with such rules and
regulations. Hence, upholding action taken
by Deputy Registrar, Court in para 55 of
judgment observed:

"The
original
records
were
deposited by the appellant. The Deputy
Registrar has undertaken exercise to
verify the membership on the basis of
agenda, proceedings, membership register
and passbook of the bank account etc., and
found that there was nothing illegal in the
induction of those members and proceeded
to accept the membership under Section 4B of the Act on 17.10.2014."

38. This judgment makes it clear
that under Section 4-B of Act, 1860,
Registrar
is
not
supposed
to
make
adjudication of dispute of correctness of
membership like a Court but whenever a
list is submitted or there is any change in
the list of members and any objection is
raised or otherwise, Registrar has to prima
facie satisfy himself that change has been
made in accordance with provisions of
bye-laws and prima facie genuine. For this
purpose, Registrar may examine agenda,
minutes of meeting and other relevant
steps taken by Society. To this extent, an
inquiry can be made by Registrar to find
out whether list of members or change in
list of members is correct or not.

 (emphasis added)

18. Accordingly, considering the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of T.P. Singh (supra) it is
apparent that the Deputy Registrar is
supposed
to
act
administratively
by
applying his mind on the facts and
documents placed before him and to that
extent an inquiry can be made by the
Registrar to find out whether list of
members or change in the list of members
is correct or not. Perusal of Section 4 B of
the Act, 1860 would indicate that the
documents which are required to be
examined by the Registrar have been
indicated but the legislature in its wisdom
has not used the word "only" so as to
preclude the Registrar from going into
other documents that may be relevant for
arriving at a finding by him pertaining to
the correctness of the list. Thus, in case the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is accepted the same would
tantamount to prescribing something by the
legislature in Section 4 B of the Act, 1860
which is not provided and thus there would
not be any bar in the Registrar going
through other documents also apart from
the documents as mentioned in Section 4 B
of the Act, 1860 in order to examine the
correctness of the list of members.
Consequently, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned order passed by
the Registrar in having gone beyond the
documents as contemplated under Section 4
B of the Act, 1860.

19. So far as the ground of non
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is
concerned, from a perusal of records it is
apparent
that
the
list
of
members
containing the name of petitioners that had
been submitted by the society was never
admitted or accepted by the competent
authority rather objections were filed
against the same and at the same time
objections had also been invited by the
competent authority. Accordingly, once the
list of members was never accepted by the
Registrar, as such it cannot be said that the
petitioners acquired any vested right for
being given an opportunity of hearing. The
society, of which the petitioners claims
themselves to be a members, was duly
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
represented and had also been heard by the
competent authority prior to passing the
impugned order. Thus, the said ground is
rejected.

20. So far as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sarvendra Veer
Vikram Singh (supra) is concerned,
suffice to say that in the said judgment the
Court had noted in paragraph 35 that the
list of members was admitted by the
Deputy Registrar by passing an order dated
20.12.2016 and the list was not merely
presented. Admittedly, in this case, the list
of members was only presented and never
admitted and thus it was in those
circumstances that the Court held that an
opportunity of hearing was required to be
given to the members. As such the said
judgment would not be applicable in the
facts of the present case.

21. So far as the judgment in the case
of Shiv Narain Agarwal (supra) is
concerned, the judgment of Sarvendra
Veer Vikram Singh (supra) has been
followed
without
noticing
the
distinguishing factors as are present in the
present case and thus the judgment of Shiv
Narain Agarwal (supra) would also not be
applicable in the facts of the present case.

22. So far as the ground of decision
making process being erroneous on account
of the aforesaid two grounds, suffice to say
that this Court does not find the grounds (a)
& (b) are attracted in the facts of the instant
case and, as such no error is found in the
decision making process of the competent
authority which has led to the passing of
the impugned order.

23. Considering the aforesaid, this
Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity with the impugned order dated
11.02.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1
to the writ petition. Accordingly the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A252
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 3000028 of 1991

Kunwar Bahadur Singh Deceased now
Dharmraj Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Prescribed
Authority/
A.D.M.
Ceiling
Unnao & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
D.C. Mukherjee, Amit Mukerjee, Ramesh
Chandra Pathak, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Verma,
Sukhveer Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10 (2) -
Second notice to tenure holder - while
issuing a fresh notice u/s 10(2) prima
facie
subjective
satisfaction
of
the
authority is required to be recorded in the
subsequent notice u/s 10(2) that either of
the two conditions u/s 29 of the Act is
fulfilled i.e. (a) the land has come to be
held by a tenure holder under a decree or
order of any Court, or as a result of
succession or transfer, or by prescription
in consequence of an adverse possession,
and such land together with the land
already held by him exceeds the ceiling
area applicable to him or (b) that any
other unirrigated land becomes irrigated
land as a result of irrigation under certain
conditions - A second or a fresh notice u/s
10(2) by the authority cannot be issued
cursorily
without
adverting
to
the
conditions for issuance of a fresh notice -