# Smt. Afsar Jahan v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 824
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000065 of 1997
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-afsar-jahan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53812
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., C.P.M. Tripathi, Fateh Bahadur
Singh, Ripu Daman Shahi, Syed Aftab
Ahmad, Syed Ali, Veer Keshwar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the orders passed by
Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 thereby
declaring certain lands belonging to Waqf as
surplus and subsequent proceedings initiated
by State authorities pursuant thereto, could be
sustained in law, in spite of abatement of
original ceiling proceedings and appeal by virtue
of Section 31(2) and (3) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act,
1976 and existence of final and binding civil
court decree declaring said land to be Waqf
property under management of Shia Central
Waqf Board, thereby exempt from operation of
Ceiling Act under Section 6(f) thereof.

Headnotes
U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 - ss. 29, 66,
68 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 - para
31(2) - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - ss. 6(f), 7, 10, 10(2),
13 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Rules, 1961 - r. 8 - The
undisputed facts of case are that one Raja
Yasin Ali Khan, erstwhile Taluqdar of
Devgaon Estate, had, in the year 1936,
dedicated certain immovable properties
situated in several villages for religious
and charitable purposes, thereby creating
a Waqf in accordance with Muslim law -
Subsequent to his demise, Yawar Hussain
Khan acted as Mutawalli and on 22
November 1959, submitted application for
registration of said Waqf to Shia Central
Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh, whereupon
certificate of registration u/s 29 of U.P.
Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 was issued on 23
March 1973 - Despite the said property
being recorded as Waqf land, proceedings
8 All. Smt. Afsar Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
825
under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against
Yawar Hussain Khan, culminating in order
dated 31 December 1974, declaring part
of land as surplus - Appeal filed there
against was deemed to have abated under
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings
(Amendment)
Act,
1976
-
Thereafter,
Shia
Central
Waqf
Board
instituted
regular
civil
suit
seeking
declaration and injunction, which was
decreed in its favour in 1990, affirming
land as Waqf property - Finding upheld in
appeal by District Judge, Faizabad, in
1996 - Notwithstanding finality of such
decrees, State authorities issued fresh
notices in 1996-1997 to take possession
of
property,
leading
to
instant
writ
petition filed by petitioner, successor
Mutawalliya, challenging legality and
jurisdiction of such proceedings.

Held: In the instant case, during pendency of
appeal before District Judge, Faizabad, U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1976 i.e. U.P. Act No.20 of
1976 came into force and as per aboveextracted provisions, entire proceedings pending
including appeals had to abate and Prescribed
Authority was empowered to issue fresh

## Text

824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner had to establish a new unit but
she failed to do so, therefore, her claim for
margin money has been rightly rejected by
the authority concerned.

12. It is trite law that a writ of
mandamus and/or writ of certiorari would
only be issued by this Court when the
Court finds palpable error or manifest
illegality in the procedure followed by the
State authorities. Furthermore, if the
authorities have acted within jurisdiction
and passed an order based on the materials
available, no writ would lie.

13. In the present factual matrix, it is
clear that the authorities have acted on the
basis of two inspection reports that have
indicated that the petitioner has not acted in
terms of the Rural Employment Generation
Programme and has not created a new
project to become eligible under the above
programme. In fact, the petitioner has not
been able to controvert the statements made
in the counter affidavit.

14. In light of the same, this Court is
of the view that the impugned order is
justified, in accordance with law and does
not require any interference.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition
lacks merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 824
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000065 of 1997

Smt. Afsar Jahan ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vimla Mishra, Harguru Charan, Mohammad
Aslam Khan, Pt. S. Chandra, Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., C.P.M. Tripathi, Fateh Bahadur
Singh, Ripu Daman Shahi, Syed Aftab
Ahmad, Syed Ali, Veer Keshwar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the orders passed by
Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 thereby
declaring certain lands belonging to Waqf as
surplus and subsequent proceedings initiated
by State authorities pursuant thereto, could be
sustained in law, in spite of abatement of
original ceiling proceedings and appeal by virtue
of Section 31(2) and (3) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act,
1976 and existence of final and binding civil
court decree declaring said land to be Waqf
property under management of Shia Central
Waqf Board, thereby exempt from operation of
Ceiling Act under Section 6(f) thereof.

Headnotes
U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 - ss. 29, 66,
68 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 - para
31(2) - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - ss. 6(f), 7, 10, 10(2),
13 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Rules, 1961 - r. 8 - The
undisputed facts of case are that one Raja
Yasin Ali Khan, erstwhile Taluqdar of
Devgaon Estate, had, in the year 1936,
dedicated certain immovable properties
situated in several villages for religious
and charitable purposes, thereby creating
a Waqf in accordance with Muslim law -
Subsequent to his demise, Yawar Hussain
Khan acted as Mutawalli and on 22
November 1959, submitted application for
registration of said Waqf to Shia Central
Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh, whereupon
certificate of registration u/s 29 of U.P.
Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 was issued on 23
March 1973 - Despite the said property
being recorded as Waqf land, proceedings
8 All. Smt. Afsar Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
825
under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against
Yawar Hussain Khan, culminating in order
dated 31 December 1974, declaring part
of land as surplus - Appeal filed there
against was deemed to have abated under
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings
(Amendment)
Act,
1976
-
Thereafter,
Shia
Central
Waqf
Board
instituted
regular
civil
suit
seeking
declaration and injunction, which was
decreed in its favour in 1990, affirming
land as Waqf property - Finding upheld in
appeal by District Judge, Faizabad, in
1996 - Notwithstanding finality of such
decrees, State authorities issued fresh
notices in 1996-1997 to take possession
of
property,
leading
to
instant
writ
petition filed by petitioner, successor
Mutawalliya, challenging legality and
jurisdiction of such proceedings.

Held: In the instant case, during pendency of
appeal before District Judge, Faizabad, U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1976 i.e. U.P. Act No.20 of
1976 came into force and as per aboveextracted provisions, entire proceedings pending
including appeals had to abate and Prescribed
Authority was empowered to issue fresh notice
for determination of surplus area of tenure
holder only within period of 2 years from
10.10.1975, but no notice was ever issued
either to Shia Central Waqf Board or to Yawar
Husain or to petitioner and in this view of
matter, notice issued on 20.12.1996 and
16.1.1997 are illegal and without jurisdiction
and order passed by Prescribed Authority in
regard to taking possession over surplus land is
contrary to provisions of Act - It is pertinent to
note that State of U.P. preferred Civil Appeal
before District Judge, Faizabad, against order
dated 08.05.1990, whereby IInd Additional Civil
Judge, Faizabad, declared land as waqf property
and protected its possession from disturbance
under judgment dated 31.12.1974 of Prescribed
Authority - The said appeal was dismissed on
30.11.1996, and no further appeal having been
filed, order attained finality - Considering
totality of facts and circumstances, orders dated
08.04.1997, 31.12.1974 passed by Prescribed
Authority and 23.04.1976 passed in appeal are
hereby quashed. [Paras 18 to 20] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960; U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act,
1976; U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960; U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Rules, 1961.

List of Keywords
Writ of Certiorari; Prescribed Authority; Mutwalli
/ Mutawalliya / Naib Mutwalli; Oral Waqf;
Taziadari;
Waqf
property;
Tenure-holder;
Surplus land / surplus area; Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960; Abatement / abated
proceedings; Civil Court decree; Jurisdiction /
without jurisdiction; Notice u/s 10 of Act, 1960;
Exempt u/s 6(f) of Act, 1960; Regular Suit /
Decree / Appeal; Declaration and Permanent
Injunction; Overriding effect; Alternative remedy /
efficacious remedy; Violation of principles of
natural justice; Miscarriage of justice / material
injustice; Benami entry; Tenure rights / khatedar;
Redetermination of surplus land; U.P. Act No.20 of
1975; Amendment Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 20 of
1976); Abatement of appeal u/s 31(2) and (3);
Certificate of registration u/s 29 of Act, 1960; ExTaluqdar; Decree attained finality; Quashed / set aside.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ - C No. -
3000065 of 1997

From the Order dated 8.4.1997, 31.12.1974
passed by the Prescribed Authority and Order
dated 23.4.1976 passed in appeal.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Vimla Misra, Harguru Charan, Mohammad Aslam
Khan, Pt. S. Chandra, Vinod Kumar

Adv. for the Respondent:
C.S.C., C.P.M.Tripathi, Fateh Bahadur Singh,
Ripu Daman Shahi, Syed Aftab Ahmad, Syed Ali,
Veer Keshwar Singh
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Sadab
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Syad Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel
for the respondent-Shiya Central Board of
Waqf, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Shri vinod
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
intervener, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents-State and Shri A.P. Singh,
learned Advocate holding biref of Shri
R.D. Shahi, learned Advocate.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
judgment
and
order
dated
8.4.1997 as well as the order dated
31.12.1974 of the Prescribed Authority and
order dated 23.4.1976 passed in appeal.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
Raja Yasin Ali Khan , Ex Tauluqedar of
Devgaon Estate for religion and charitable
purpose before 1.5.1959 and dedicated his
land in several villages used as Waqf
property, but the application for registration
of the Waqf was given on 22.11.1959 by
Sri Yawar Hussain Khan to the Shiya
Central Board of Waqf, U.P., Lucknow.
Due to oversight the certificate for
registration under Section 29 of U.P.
Muslim Waqfs Act, Shri Yawar Hussain on
16.6.1971, on which report was submitted
by the Secretary of the Board on
19.10.1971 and the certificate under
Section 29 of the Act was issued on
23.3.1973.

The
proceedings
under
the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was
taken and even though the land was
recorded as Waqf property. Neither Shiya
Central Board of Waqf, U.P., Lucknow was
made a party in the proceedings in
according with Section 68 of the U.P.
Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 nor any notice
was given to it under Section 66 of the said
Act.

After the death of Sri Yawar
Hussain, petitioner no.1, his widow became
the sole Mutwalli of the Waqf property but
after she became old and inform on her
requested dated 28.5.1993 petitioner no.2 ,
Ikhlas Hussain @ Shawar was appointed
Naib Mutwalli.

Notices under Section 10 of the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 were issued in the
name of Sri Yawar Hussain Khan who was
only a Sarbarakar or Mutwalli. In response
to the notices, Sri Yawar Hussain Khan
submitted his replies and pointed out that
the Waqf and in accordance with Section
6(f) of the Act is exempt from the
provisions of the Act. This contention was
accepted by the Prescribed Authorityin
respct of land in village Poorey Lal Khan
and by the judgment and order dated
30.6.1962 the notice was discharged. The
Prescribed Authority in his judgment and
order annexed as Annexure no.4 had come
to the conclusion that the oral waqf had
been created by Raja Yasin Ali Khan in
1936 and the income from the land was
utilised for Taziadari etc.

In respect of other villages
Devgaon Poora alias Sumerpur, Mewapur,
Indalpur the Prescribed Authority did not
accept the contention that the land was
Waqf property created before 1.5.1959 and
holding the same to be that of Sri Yawar
Hussain he declared 278 Bighas 16 Biswas
15 Biswansi to be surplus area of Sri
Yawar Hussain.

Aggrieved by the judgment and
order, Sri Yawar Hussain Khan preferred
appeal under Section 13 of the Act which
8 All. Smt. Afsar Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
827
was decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad
on 23.4.1976. During the pendency of the
appeal, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 i.e. U.P.
Act No.20 of 1976 came into force and
para 31(2) which had abated all the pending
appeals.

The appeal was thus deemed to
have abated and the Prescribed Authority
had been given powers to issue fresh
notices for determining the surplus area of
a tenure holder only within a period of two
years from 10.10.1975, but in the present
case the Prescribed Authority did not give
any notice either to Shiya Central Board of
Waqf of Sri Yawar Hussain Khan of the
petitioners.

When the State of U.P. wanted to
take possession of the Waqf property Shiya
Central Board of Waqf instituted regular
suit
for
declaration
and
permanent
injunction against 1. State of U.P. through
Secretary Department of Revenue, U.P.
Government as well as State of U.P.
through Collector, Faizabad, Prescribed
Authority,
Ceiling
Bikapur,
District
Faizabad and Sri Yawar Hussain Khan was
also impleaded as defendant no.4 in the
same suit. The suit was decreed on
8.5.1990 by Sri R.K. Gupta, Second
Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad. It was
held that the land was Waqf property
belonging to Shiya Central Board of Waqf
and that the possession of the same could
not be disturbed by the judgment and order
dated 31.12.1974.

Aggrieved by the judgment and
decree the State of U.P. preferred appeal
no.60 of 1990 which has been heard and
dismissed by Sri V.B. Srivastava, Vith
Additional District Judge, Faizabad on
30.11.1996. On 20.12.1996, opposite party
no.2 issued notice to the petitioners asking
the petitioners as to why possession be not
taken. Another notice was issued to the
petitioners by opposite party no.2 on
16.1.1997.

In
response
to
the
notice,
petitioners preferred written objections on
10.3.1997 raising the plea that there was
legal order for declaration of the land as
surplus area of the petitioners, and notice if
any could have been issued within two
years from 10.10.1975 and the same could
not be issued after such a long time even
under Rule 8 of the Rules under the Act.

The
Prescribed
Authority
opposite party no.2 has mentioned the pleas
taken by the petitioner but without giving
cogent reasons for rejecting the same has
rejected them and by the impugned order
filed as Annexure no.1 has ordered that
possession be taken of the surplus area
declared in the order dated 31.12.1974.

The
Prescribed
Authority
ignoring the provisions of U.P. Act No.20
of 1975 has taken notice of the judgment
and orders dated 31.12.1974 passed by the
Prescribed Authority and the judgment and
order dated 23.4.1976 passed by Sri U.C.
Dikshit, Civil Judge, Faizabad dismissing
the appeal even through the same had
abated. He further ignored the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court
declaring that the land belonged to Shiya
Central Board of Waqf and that the
possession of the same be not disturbed.

4. Learned Senior Advocate submitted
that
the
judgment
and
order
dated
31.12.1974 passed by the Prescribed
Authority and the appeal preferred against
the said order was deemed to have abated
in view of Section 31(2)(3) of the U.P. Act
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.20 of 1975 amending the provisions of
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that no notice having
been given either to the petitioners or
opposite party no.3- Shiya Central Board of
Waqfs which is the tenure holder of the
land in question opposite party nos.1 and 2
have no jurisdiction under the law to
declare or take possession of any land in an
illegal manner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the opposite party
nos.1 and 2 being defendants in the regular
suit instituted by Shiya Central Board of
Waqf decreed against them and being
appellants in the appeal which had been
dismissed with costs have no right to sit in
judgment over the same and ignore the
decrees passed by the competent Civil
Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the land in dispute
being Saqf property as accepted by the
Prescribed Authority in respect of village
Poorey Lalganj, is exempt from the
proceedings under Section 6 (f) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the notice issued on
20.12.1996
and
dated
16.1.1997
are
manifestly erroneous illegal and without
jurisdiction.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted that in any view of the
matter, the impugned judgment and order
dated 8.4.1997 annexed as Annexure No.1
is contrary to law laid down by the Act and
the Rules as well as the legal principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
High Court and the same is arbitrary only
for pleasing the present Government which
wants to let out the land to Dalits at all
costs.

10. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel
submitted
that
Prescribed
Authority after analysing the provisions
contained under Sections 6 and 7 of the
Act, observed that the provisions of Ceiling
Act will have overriding effect over the
other general civil laws and moreover
findings arrived at by the Ceiling Court
cannot be questioned before any Civil
Court. Learned Prescribed Authority also
observed that entry in the name of the
Waqf in the revenue record is benami and
the interest of the Khatedar, Mutawalli and
the Waqf Board is the same and thereafter
rejected the objections filed by the
petitioners and opposite party no.3.

11. Learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that it is settled view that
efficacious
alternate
remedy
the
adjudication of writ petition having some
exception
such
as
the
violation
of
principles of natural justice i.e. order
passed by the Authority without having
proper hearing to the concerned party
whose legal rights have been infringed,
another order obtained by playing forgery
or fraud committing material injustice and
miscarriage of justice.

12. Learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that the Prescribed Authority
firmly held that the Civil Court has not
given any finding on the point of Waqf
being registered prior to 1.5.1959 and
rather left the issue for authority on the
application and documentary evidence held
that Waqf was constituted after 1.5.59 and
8 All. Smt. Afsar Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
829
in this view of the matter the writ petition is
liable to be rejected and this Court be
pleased to issue the direction to the
petitioners to avail the remedy of Appellate
jurisdiction.

13. Learned counsel for the intevener
has reiterated the same submission as
advanced by learned Standing Counsel of
having alternative remedy to file appeal
under Section 13 of the Act and as such,
the writ petition is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed.

14. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the material available on
record.

15. Perusal of the material available on
record reveals that Raja Yaseen Ali was the
Taluqdar
of
Deogaon
dedicated
his
properties situated in several villages by
creating Waqf in 1936. On 22.11.1959, an
application for registration of the Waqf was
made by Yawar Husain Khan to Shia
Central Waqf Board, wherein on 23.3.1973,
a certificate of registration under U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 was issued under
Section 29 of the Act. After death of Yawar
Hussain
Khan,
his
widow
became
Mutawalliya of the Waqf and thereafter she
appointed Ikhlas Husain as Naib Mutawalli
by making an application to the Board.

Notice under Section 10 of the
Act was issued to Yawar Husain Khan,
whereupon
he
filed
objections.
On
31.6.1962, Prescribed Authority allowed
objection and in regard to other village
namely Deogaon, Poora @ Sameerpur,
Mewapur, Indalpur, held that it was not the
Waqf property, thereby declared 278-16-15
bighasis surplus land. Being aggrieved,
Yawar Husain Khan filed an appeal before
the District Judge which was transferred to
Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad and the
same was dismissed the appeal vide
judgment dated 23.4.1976. Thereafter, a
suit bearing Regular Suit No.60 of 1980
titled 'Shia Central Waqf Board v. State of
U.P. and others' for declaration and
injunction was filed which was decreed by
IInd Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad
holding that the land in suit was Waqf
property and possession could not be
disturbed.

Being aggrieved, the State of U.P.
filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.60
of 1990 before the District Judge, Faizabad
which was dismissed vide judgment dated
30.11.1996. On 20.12.1996, a notice was
issued by the opposite party no.2 to the
petitioner as why possession be not taken.
On 16.1.1997, another notice was issued
under Section 10(2) of the Act by the
Prescribed Authority whereupon objections
were filed stating therein that a declaration
had already been made about the Waqf and
no notice would be issued after expiry of
two years.

16.
To
resolve
the
controversy
involved in the present writ petition, Para
31(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 i.e.
U.P. Act No.20 of 1976, are quoted
hereinbelow:

(2) Where an order determining
the surplus land in relation to a tenure
holder has been made under the Principal
Act before January 17, 1975 and the
Prescribed
Authority
is
required
to
redetermine the surplus land under Section
9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment)
Act, 1974 (U.P. Act II of 1975) then
notwithstanding anything contained in
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subsection (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act
No. XVII of 1975) every appeal under
Section 13 of the Principal Act or other
proceedings in relation to such appeal
preferred against the said order and
pending immediately before the tenth day
of October, 1975 shall be deemed to have
abated on the said date.

(3) Where an order determining
surplus land in violation to a tenure
holder
has
been
made
under
the
Principal Act before the tenth day of
October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority
(as defined in the Principal Act) may at
any time within a period of two years
from the said date redetermine the
surplus land in accordance with the
Principal Act as amended by this Act
whether or not any appeal was filed
against such order and notwithstanding
any appeal (whether pending or decided)
against
the
original
order
of
determination of surplus land."

17. On perusal of the aboveextracted, it is crystal clear that where an
order
determining
surplus
land
in
relation to a tenure-holder has been
made under the principal Act before
10.10.1975, the prescribed authority
may, at any time within a period of two
years from the said date, redetermine the
surplus land in accordance with the
principal Act as amended by Act No. 20
of 1976, at any time within a period of
two years from the said date.

18. In the present case, during
pendency of appeal before the District
Judge, Faizabad, U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment)
Act, 1976 i.e. U.P. Act No.20 of 1976
came into force and as per the aboveextracted
provisions,
the
entire
proceedings
pending
including
the
appeals had to abate and the the
Prescribed Authority was empowered to
issue a fresh notice for determination of
the surplus area of a tenure holder only
within a period of 2 years from
10.10.1975, but no notice was ever
issued either to Shia Central Waqf Board
or to Yawar Husain or to the petitioner
and in this view of the matter, notice
issued on 20.12.1996 (Annexure-8) and
16.1.1997 (Annexure-9) are illegal and
without jurisdiction and order passed by
the Prescribed Authority in regard to
taking possession over the surplus land
is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

19. It is also pertinent of the
mention that the State of U.P. filed an
appeal (Civil No.60 of 1990) before the
District Judge, Faizabad against the
order dated 8.5.1990 vide which IInd
Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad held
that the land in suit was waqf property
and
the
possession
could not
be
disturbed in pursuance to the judgment
dated
31.12.1974
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority,
which
was
dismissed
vide
judgment
dated
30.11.1996.
Thereafter,
no
second
appeal was filed against the order dated
30.11.1996 and the said order became
final.

20. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of this case, order dated
8.4.1997 as annexed as Annexure-1, order
dated 31.12.1974 passed by the Prescribed
Authority and order dated 23.4.1976 passed
in appeal are hereby quashed.

21. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.
8 All. Jyoti Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
831
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 831
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5919 of 2025

Jyoti Rawat ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shabnam

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to Rape on false pretext of
marriage.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec. 376-Allegation of
rape on false promise of marriage-claim 7
years
of
love
relationship-victim
married
someone else-claim to divorce him-but accused
refused to marry the victim-impugned FIRaccused cannot marry a married women-proof
of divorce not given-refusal to marry a married
women cannot be criminalized -proceedings
quashed. Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1.Bharat Sangh vs. Prafful Kumar, 1989,CRLJ
154 (S.C.)
2. Deepak Kumar Gulati vs. State of Haryana,
(2013) 7 SCC 675
3. Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46
4. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2019) 9 SCC 608

List of Acts
Indian Penal code,1860

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant :- Shabnam, Counsel for
Opposite Party :- G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1.
प्रागथगनी के विद्िान अगििक्ता सुश्री
शबनम शेि तथा विद्िान अपर शासकीय
अगििक्ता श्री अिय कुमार भसंह को सुना तथा
पत्रािली का अिलोकन क्रकया।

2.
िारा 482 दडि प्रक्रिया संहहता के अंतिगत
प्रस्तुत इस प्राथगना पत्र द्िारा प्रागथगनी ने विशेष
न्यायािीश एस.सी. / एस.टी. एक्ट, लिनऊ
द्िारा सत्र िाद संख्या 1089 सन 2024 में
पाररत आदेश हदनांक 02.06.2025 की िैिता को
िुनौती दी है ण्जसके द्िारा वििारण न्यायालय
ने प्राथी के विरुद्ि मात्र िारा 504, 506
िा०दं०सं० ि िारा 3(1) ब (ii) एस०सी० /
एस०टी० में आरोप विरिन का मामला पाया एिं
िारा 376, 313 िा०दं०सं० के अपरािों से विपक्षी
संख्या 2 तथा 3 को उन्मोगित कर हदया, की
िैिता को िुनौती दी ियी है।

3.
 प्रस्तुत प्रकरण प्रागथगनी द्िारा विपक्षी
संख्या 2 तथा 3 के विरुद्ि हदनांक 08.11.2023
को भलिाई िई प्रथम सूिना ररपोटग के आिार
पर संण्स्थत हुआ ण्जसमें कहा िया है क्रक
प्रागथगनी का संबंि लििि 7 िषग पूिग विपक्षी
संख्या 2 से हुआ था तथा उनमें प्रेम प्रसंि हो
िया एिं शादी का झांसा देकर विपक्षी संख्या 2
ने कई बार शारीररक संबंि बनाये ण्जससे
प्रागथगनी ििगिती हो ियी। दिा खिलाने से
उसका ििगपात हो िया। प्रागथगनी का अन्यत्र
वििाह हो िया। प्रागथगनी का अन्यत्र वििाह हो
िया क्रकन्तु इसके बाद िी विपक्षी संख्या 2 उसे
फोन करके वििाह करने का झांसा देता रहा