# Sri Niwas & Ors v. Upper Ayukt Administration Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 495
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-08
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000154 of 2003
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-niwas-ors-v-upper-ayukt-administration-lucknow-ors-50682
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Imposition Ceiling
(Amendment) Act - Section 5 (6) (b) -
transfer by tenure holder, if made after
27.01.1971, its bona fide consideration as
per market value and in good faith,
Section (8) - sale deeds which are covered
by sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the Act
are to be treated as void - sale deeds
executed
after
24.1.1971
are to
be
ignored unless they are saved under
clause (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 5 -
prescribed authority could look into the
validity of the sale deeds not only
executed after 24.1.1971 but also of the
sale deeds executed prior to it.(Para -
6,7,8,9)

Petitioners in possession of disputed parcels
of land - agreement to sale executed on
14.12.1970 - sale deed registered on
10.06.1975
in
favour
of
petitioner
-
appellate authority recorded cause for delay
of one and a half year - sale deed not
executed in a good faith - intent to defeat
provisions
of
Ceiling
Act.
-
Appellate
authority under U.P. Imposition Ceiling
(Amendment)
Act
-
upheld
order
of
prescribed authority - declared disputed
parcels of land to be surplus - discarded
sale deed executed in favour of petitioner -
hence petition. (Para -2,4,5,7)

HELD:-Both authorities neglected to consider
reasons for delay in execution of the sale deed.
No material in the record for both the
authorities to hold that the sale deed lacked
bonafides or was not executed in good faith.
Impugned orders fell into errors of facts and
law. Order passed by appellate authority as well
as by prescribed authority set aside.(Para -
11,13,14)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Sri Niwas & Ors. Vs. Upper Ayukt Administration Lucknow & Ors.
495
Bankati and in case some land from village
Bankati has been taken as surplus the same
be restored to the petitioner and as per his
choice land of the petitioner in other
villages may be taken as surplus. In this
regard liberty is given to the petitioner to
move an appropriate application to the
prescribed authority within next four weeks
from today. In case such an application is
made, the prescribed authority shall pass
appropriate orders within two months
thereafter strictly in accordance with the
directions issued by this Court.

21.

Subject
to
the
aforesaid
observations, there is no merits in the writ
petition filed by the petitioner which is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 495
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 3000154 of 2003

Sri Niwas & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Upper Ayukt Administration Lucknow &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
V.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Imposition Ceiling
(Amendment) Act - Section 5 (6) (b) -
transfer by tenure holder, if made after
27.01.1971, its bona fide consideration as
per market value and in good faith,
Section (8) - sale deeds which are covered
by sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the Act
are to be treated as void - sale deeds
executed
after
24.1.1971
are to
be
ignored unless they are saved under
clause (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 5 -
prescribed authority could look into the
validity of the sale deeds not only
executed after 24.1.1971 but also of the
sale deeds executed prior to it.(Para -
6,7,8,9)

Petitioners in possession of disputed parcels
of land - agreement to sale executed on
14.12.1970 - sale deed registered on
10.06.1975
in
favour
of
petitioner
-
appellate authority recorded cause for delay
of one and a half year - sale deed not
executed in a good faith - intent to defeat
provisions
of
Ceiling
Act.
-
Appellate
authority under U.P. Imposition Ceiling
(Amendment)
Act
-
upheld
order
of
prescribed authority - declared disputed
parcels of land to be surplus - discarded
sale deed executed in favour of petitioner -
hence petition. (Para -2,4,5,7)

HELD:-Both authorities neglected to consider
reasons for delay in execution of the sale deed.
No material in the record for both the
authorities to hold that the sale deed lacked
bonafides or was not executed in good faith.
Impugned orders fell into errors of facts and
law. Order passed by appellate authority as well
as by prescribed authority set aside.(Para -
11,13,14)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1.
Pramod
Kumar & ors. Vs Additional
Commissioner
(Administration)
Gorakhpur
Division & ors. , 1999 (1) AWC 875

2. Satnam Kaur Vs Commissioner Lucknow
Division, Writ C No. 1000541 of 1992

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Shri V. K. Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The writ petition arises out of a
judgement dated 10.04.2003 rendered by
the appellate authority under the U.P.
Imposition
Ceiling
(Amendment)
Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act')
upholding the order of the prescribed
authority declaring the disputed parcels of
land to be surplus and discarding the sale
deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioners are in possession of
the disputed parcels of land.

4. The facts recited in the impugned
order are that an agreement to sale was
executed in favour of the petitioner by the
original tenure holder on 14.12.1970 after
payment of full consideration. The sale
deed came to be registered subsequently on
10.06.1975 in favour of the petitioner.

5. The appellate authority has
recorded that the cause for delay of one and
a half year in executing the sale deed after
execution of the agreement to sale has not
been disclosed. On this footing the
impugned orders finds that the sale deed
was not executed in a good faith but only
with an intent to defeat the provisions of
the Ceiling Act.

6. The sale deed which is the subject
matter of dispute has to be examined in
light of under clause (b) of sub-section (6)
and (8) of Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition
Ceiling (Amendment) Act. The relevant
provision is extracted hereinunder:

"5. Imposition of Ceiling.....

(6) .......

(a) ........

(b) a transfer proved to the
satisfaction of the prescribed authority to
be in good faith and for adequate
consideration and under an irrevocable
instrument not being a benami transaction
or for immediate or deferred benefit of the
tenure holder or other members of his
family.

8)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-sections (6) and (7), no
tenure-holder shall transfer any land held
by
him
during
the
continuance
of
proceedings for determination of surplus
land in relation to such tenure-holder and
every transfer made in contravention of this
sub-section shall be void."

7. These are two categories of sale
deeds which arise for consideration in
proceedings under the U.P. Imposition
Ceiling (Amendment) Act. The validity of
sale deeds executed prior to and after
24.01.1971 (the disputed sale deed falls in
the category) and those after 10.10.1975
fell for consideration before this Court in
Pramod
Kumar
and
Others
Vs.
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration) Gorakhpur Division
and others, reported at 1999 (1) AWC
875, wherein it was held:

"8.
It
may
be
noted
that
prescribed authority could look into the
validity of the sale deeds not only executed
after 24.1.1971 but also of the sale deeds
executed prior to it. The sale deeds which
are covered by sub-section (8) of Section 5
of the Act are to be treated as void.

9. The sale deeds executed after
24.1.1971 are to be ignored unless they are
saved under clause (b) of sub-section (6) of
Section 5. A reference in this regard may be
made to the decision rendered in the case of
Raghuvir Singh v. State of U. P, and others,
1996 AWC 1380 and Raghuvir Singh v.
State of U. P. and others, 1979 AM 767.

10. Sub-section (8) of Section 6
has been added in the Statute by U. P.
Imposition of Celling (Amendment] Act,
8 All. Sri Niwas & Ors. Vs. Upper Ayukt Administration Lucknow & Ors.
497
1976 (Act No. XX of 1976) which came
into force with effect from 10.10.1975.
Thus all sale deeds relied upon by the
petitioners, i.e., dated 13.4.1973, 5.11.1974
and 20.9.1975 were executed before the
enactment and enforcement of sub-section
(8) of Section 5. Therefore, the said sale
deeds cannot be said to be void in terms of
sub-section (8) of Section 5. View taken to
the contrary by the authorities below is
thus, manifestly erroneous. Illegal. A
reference in this regard may be made to the
decision rendered by a Division Bench in
the case of Om Prakash Agarwal v. A.D.J,
and others, 1981 AWC 775. It was thus
obligatory upon the authority below to look
into the validity or otherwise of the sale
deeds in question before discarding the
same. The authorities below committed an
error which is apparent on the face of
record in holding that the aforesaid sale
deeds were void and were hit by subsection (8) of Section 5."

8. In Pramod (supra) this Court
delineated the statutory duty of the
appellate authority while examining the
disputed sale deeds as under:

"11. The prescribed authority
after going through the evidence on the
record, recorded findings on the issues
framed in the case against petitioners while
dealing with sale deeds dated 5.11.1974
and 29.9.1975. It has taken the view that
the said sale deeds were void on the basis
of sub-section (8) of Section 5, which as
stated above had no application in the
present case. The appellate authority did
not apply Its mind to the question as to
whether the said sale deeds were executed
in
good
faith,
and
for
adequate
consideration, under Irrevocable Instrument
and as to whether they were benami or
were executed for Immediate and deferred
benefit of the tenure holder and other
members of his family. In accordance with
law, it had to apply Its mind to the said
questions before discarding the said sale
deeds and rejecting the claim of the
petitioners."

9. Similarly this Court in Satnam
Kaur
Vs.
Commissioner
Lucknow
Division rendered in Writ C No. 1000541
of 1992 while determining a similar issue
regarding the bona fides of a sale deed in
the context of the Ceiling Act stated thus:

"8. Considering the arguments of
learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as learned Standing Counsel and going
through the contents of pleadings as well as
impugned orders, it is evident that Section
5 (6) (b) of the Act, clearly provides that
transfer by tenure holder, if made after
27.01.1971, its bona fide consideration as
per market value and in good faith. It is not
disputed that the agreement to sale related
to the property in question were executed in
between 31.03.1970 to 01.01.1971 as all
the consideration was paid at the time of
agreement and possession was also given in
pursuance of the agreement, and thereafter,
sale deed in respect of the property in
question
were
executed
in
between
26.07.1971 to 17.10.1973. Agreements to
sale with possession are not disputed and
all these facts were not considered by the
Prescribed Authority. Hence, the petition is
allowed and the impugned orders are
hereby set aside."

10. The recitals in the sale deed
disclose that the delay in executing the sale
deed after execution of the agreement to
sale was occasioned on account of the
continued ill health of the vendor. The sale
deed was admittedly in the records before
the appellate authority as well as prescribed
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority. However, both the authorities
neglected to consider the reasons for delay
in execution of the sale deed as cited in the
said document.

11. In this wake, the impugned orders
are vitiated due to non application of mind
and it cannot be stated that the sale deed
was not in a good faith. The adequacy as
well as payment of consideration in regard
to the lands comprised in the sale deed are
not disputed. There is no material in the
record for both the authorities to hold that
the sale deed lacked bofa fides or was not
executed in good faith.

12. In light of the preceding
discussion and the findings of fact made
above, the judgement rendered by this
Court in Pramod (supra) and Satnam
Kaur (supra) also cover the facts of this
case.

13. The appellate authority as well as
prescribed authority while passing the
impugned
orders
10.04.2003
and
31.03.1999 fell into errors of facts and law.

14. The impugned order passed by the
appellate authority dated 10.04.2003 as
well as the order passed by the prescribed
authority dated 31.03.1999 are liable to be
set aside and are set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 498
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.
Writ Tax No. 1510 of 2022

Digvendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ami Tandon, Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sr.
Advocate, Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri Anoop Trivedi
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta

(A) Tax Law - The Direct Tax Vivad Se
Vishwas Act, 2020 - Sections 2(1), 3, 4 & 5
- If delay in depositing the arrears of tax
in resolution of scheme is caused due to
extraordinary
circumstance,
then
the
court cannot close its eyes and will permit
the declarant to deposit the same - while
condoning the delay caused due to
extraordinary circumstances in depositing
the arrears of tax in the resolution
scheme, the court will not amount to
extending the scheme, but it is a remedial
measure, considering the extraordinary
circumstances of the declarant.(Para -12)

Petitioner filed declaration under Section 3 of
the Act - certificate was issued adjusting his tax
paid - last date for depositing arrears was
extended to 31.10.2021 - On 31.10.2021, he
dropped a cheque, but an accident and knee
injury delayed the payment - Income Tax
Department rejected the amount deposited
under the "Vivad is Vishwas" Scheme - question
remains whether the delay can be condoned -
Apex Court did not consider the issue of
condoning
the
delay
in
extraordinary
circumstances - only observed that benefit of
scheme cannot be extended from the time
prescribed under the scheme. (Para - 10,13)

HELD:- Delay of three days in depositing the
arrears of tax of Rs. 8,67,137/- deserves to be
condoned, and the amount balance tax deposited
by the petitioner be accepted by the respondents
treating the same well within time as per the
scheme of Act, 2020. Order /letter passed by
Central Board of Direct Tax quashed. (Para - 14 )