# State of U.P v. Addl. Commissioner Admn., Lucknow. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 407
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000070 of 2002
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-addl-commissioner-admn-lucknow-ors-52273
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Act,1960
-
Section
5(6)
-
Explanation I(b) - In determining the
ceiling area any transfer of land made
after the twenty-fourth day of Jan., 1971,
which but for the transfer would have
been declared surplus land under this Act,
is ignored and not taken into account. The
expression 'transfer of land made after the
twenty-fourth day of Jan. 1971' includes
any
admission,
acknowledgment,
relinquishment or declaration in favour of
a person to the like effect made in any
other deed or instrument or in any other
manner (Para 16)
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, Section 5(6) - In the instant
case Prescribed Authority declared land
surplus
under
the
Ceiling
Act
on
16.01.1975. Predecessors of the private
respondents sought redetermination of
the ceiling and surplus area, claiming
Seeradari rights by adverse possession
before the enforcement of the amended
Ceiling Act. Prescribed Authority rejected
their objections, noting that the claimants
were not recorded as tenure holders on
the
reference
or
declaration
date.
Claimants, who had filed suits under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act,
colluded with Murlidhar Hakim (recorded
tenure holder of the land), who did not
contest the appeals. The appellate court
allowed
the
appeals,
declaring
the
claimants as Seerdars of the land. Held:
Appeal
was
allowed
based
on
the
tenureholder's implied admission of the
claimant's adverse possession. Declaration
of the claimant's title by the appellate
orders based on implied admission of
adverse possession constituted a "transfer
of land made after 24th January, 1971,"
which is liable to be ignored and not taken
into
account
while
determining
the
surplus land of the tenure holder u/s 5(6)
of the Ceiling Act. No illegality in the order
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority
rejecting
the
claim
of
the
private
respondents based on the plea of adverse
possession. The order of the Prescribed
Authority was restored and affirmed.
(Para 18, 20, 23, 25)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ziley Singh Vs State: 1978 All.L.J. 772

## Text

7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn., Lucknow & Ors.
407
finding with regard to the culpability of the
petitioner, coupled with the fact that the
order
dated
21.05.2012
was
not
communicated to the petitioner and hence
she was not permitted to sit in the
examinations for the year 2012-13, the
Lucknow University is responsible for
ruining the career of a student without there
being any definite and concrete finding of
misconduct in the alleged transplantation of
answersheets.

22. The courts have consistently
laid down that for unnecessary delay and
inconvenience, the opposite party must be
compensated with costs. Discussing the
purpose, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case
of
Revajeetu
Builders
and
Developers versus Narayanswamy and
sons and others reported in (2009) 10
Supreme Court Cases 84 has held :

 "62. The purpose of imposing
costs is to:

 (a)
discourage
mala
fide
amendments designed to delay the legal
proceedings;

(b) compensate the other party for the
delay and the inconvenience caused;

 (c) compensate the other party
for avoidable expenses on the litigation
which had to be incurred by the opposite
party for opposing the amendment; and

 (d) to send a clear message that
the parties have to be careful while drafting
the original pleadings."

23. In view of the above, cost must
be compensatory in nature so as to provide
remedy for the inconvenience and anguish
suffered by the aggrieved due to negligence
and failure to discharge duty enshrined
upon the authority.

24. In these circumstances, the
petitioner at best can only be compensated
and accordingly, the petition is allowed at
the cost of rupees two lakhs, which shall be
paid by the respondent University to the
petitioner within a period of two months
from the date a certified copy of the order
is produced before the concerned authority.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 407
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 3000070 of 2002

State of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admn., Lucknow. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey

A. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings
Act,1960
-
Section
5(6)
-
Explanation I(b) - In determining the
ceiling area any transfer of land made
after the twenty-fourth day of Jan., 1971,
which but for the transfer would have
been declared surplus land under this Act,
is ignored and not taken into account. The
expression 'transfer of land made after the
twenty-fourth day of Jan. 1971' includes
any
admission,
acknowledgment,
relinquishment or declaration in favour of
a person to the like effect made in any
other deed or instrument or in any other
manner (Para 16)
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, Section 5(6) - In the instant
case Prescribed Authority declared land
surplus
under
the
Ceiling
Act
on
16.01.1975. Predecessors of the private
respondents sought redetermination of
the ceiling and surplus area, claiming
Seeradari rights by adverse possession
before the enforcement of the amended
Ceiling Act. Prescribed Authority rejected
their objections, noting that the claimants
were not recorded as tenure holders on
the
reference
or
declaration
date.
Claimants, who had filed suits under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act,
colluded with Murlidhar Hakim (recorded
tenure holder of the land), who did not
contest the appeals. The appellate court
allowed
the
appeals,
declaring
the
claimants as Seerdars of the land. Held:
Appeal
was
allowed
based
on
the
tenureholder's implied admission of the
claimant's adverse possession. Declaration
of the claimant's title by the appellate
orders based on implied admission of
adverse possession constituted a "transfer
of land made after 24th January, 1971,"
which is liable to be ignored and not taken
into
account
while
determining
the
surplus land of the tenure holder u/s 5(6)
of the Ceiling Act. No illegality in the order
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority
rejecting
the
claim
of
the
private
respondents based on the plea of adverse
possession. The order of the Prescribed
Authority was restored and affirmed.
(Para 18, 20, 23, 25)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ziley Singh Vs State: 1978 All.L.J. 772

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

1. By means of the instant Writ
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner - State
of U.P. has sought quashing of an order
dated 23.05.1998 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow
Division, Lucknow allowing Appeal No.
287/291/92-93 under Section 13 (1) of the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1961.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case
are that a notice dated 19.11.1974 under
Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961
(which will hereinafter be referred to as
'the Ceiling Act') was issued to Sri.
Murlidhar Hakim, the recorded tenure
holder of the land in question. He did not
submit any reply to the notice and on
16.01.1975,
the
Prescribed
Authority
Ceiling (Second) Nighasan passed an order
declaring land bearing Gata No. 197 Ga
having an area of 7.78 acres, Gata No. 200
Kh having an area of 8.72 acres, Gata No.
202 M having an area of 7.812 acres, Gata
No. 203 having an area of 1.00 acres and
Gata No. 207 Sa having an area of 3.62
acres, total 28.93 acres, situated in village
Mahangapur,
Pargana
Palia,
Tahsil
Nighasan, District Kheri to be the surplus
land of Sri. Murlidhar Hakim.

3. On 28.06.1978, Anokh Singh,
Pyara Singh and Hazara Singh, the
predecessors in interest of the private
respondents, filed an application for their
impleadment and for redetermination of the
ceiling and surplus area of Murlidhar
Hakim, stating that the applicant no. 1
Anokh Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar
of land bearing Gata No. 207 Kh/3.62
acres,
Pyara
Singh
was
the
Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata
No. 197 Ga/7.78 and 200 Kh/8.75 acres
and
Hazara
Singh
was
the
Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata
No. 202/25.85 acres and that they had
acquired the Seeradari rights by adverse
possession much before the enforcement of
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn., Lucknow & Ors.
409
the amended Ceiling Act. They had filed
suits under Section 229-B of the U. P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be
referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act') and
their rights were acknowledged vide orders
dated
01.08.1975,
20.12.1973
and
12.01.1977 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow. The land in their possession had
wrongly been declared as surplus land of
Murlidhar Hakim. It was stated in the
application that the applicants came to
know about the order dated 16.01.1975
passed by the Prescribed Authority on
17.04.1978, when they obtained a copy of
the extract of Khatauni.

4.

The
applicants
were
impleaded and they were given an
opportunity to present their case. They
filed copies of the relevant extract of
Khatauni for the year 1380 to 1382
Fasli, copies of plaint filed in the three
suits no. 187, 383/355 and 37 filed under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act
and copies of the orders passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Lucknow in
appeals and they got their statements
recorded.

5. The State filed objections
against the application and got the
statement of Lekhpal recorded.

6. The Prescribed Authority had
rejected the claim of the predecessors of the
private respondents by means of an order
dated 30.04.1988. Appeals were filed
against the aforesaid order, which were
allowed by a composite order dated
31.01.1992 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) and the matter
was remanded to the Prescribed Authority
for being decided afresh.
7. The objectors had relied upon a
decision of this Court in the case of Ziley
Singh versus State: 1978 All.L.J. 772,

8. The Prescribed Authority
rejected the objections by means of an
order dated 24.02.1993 holding that in
Ziley Singh (Supra), the land in question
was recorded in the name of the claimant
on the reference date whereas in the present
case, the claimants' name was not recorded
as the tenure holders of the land in question
on the date of reference or on the date of
declaration. The suits filed by them under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act
were dismissed by means of orders dated
20.04.1972, 31.12.1973 and 05.07.1974.
The Prescribed Authority accepted the
submission of the State that before filing of
appeals against the orders dismissing the
suits under Section 229-B, the claimant's
had got knowledge of the provisions of the
Ceiling Act and in these circumstances, it
was natural that the claimants had colluded
with the tenure holders and for this reason,
the tenure holder Murlidhar Hakim did not
contest the appeals and the appellate Court
allowed the appeals and declared the
objectors to be the Seerdars of the land in
question.
The
order
passed
by
the
Additional Commissioner was not an order
on the merits of the case and it was not
binding on the Ceiling Authorities. The
claimants had not filed any documentary
evidence in the shape of Khatauni etc. to
prove their claim and they had based their
claims merely on the ex-parte orders passed
by the Additional Commissioner.

9. The claimants filed appeal no.
287/291/92-93 against the aforesaid order
passed by the Prescribed Authority, which
was disposed off by an order dated
23.05.1996. However, the order dated
23.05.1996 was recalled by means of an
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 05.03.1997 upon an application
dated 17.06.1996 filed by the claimants and
thereafter the appeal was allowed by the
impugned order dated 23.05.1998 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow holding that the appeals preferred
by the claimants had been decided after
hearing the State and the Prescribed
Authority erred in holding that appellate
orders had not been passed on merits of the
case.

10. It has inter alia been stated in
the Writ Petition that the land in dispute
stood vested in the State upon its
declaration as surplus land by means of the
order dated 06.06.1975 passed by the
Prescribed
Authority
and
the
State
Government had taken possession of the
land on the same date.

11 . An interim order was passed in
this Writ Petition on 09.10.2002 directing
the parties to maintain status quo.

12. Notices were issued to the
private respondents, who put in appearance
through Sri. V. K. Pandey Advocate. The
following order was passed in this case on
05.03.2022: -

 "1. Private opposite parties have
claimed to be sirdar of the land in question
on the basis of the ex-parte judgement and
decree/order passed by the appellate
authority after their claim was rejected by
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
However, the orders passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate and the appellate
authority have not been placed on record.

 2. Sri V.K. Pandey, learned
counsel for the private opposite parties is
directed to place on record the two orders
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
rejecting the claim of the opposite parties
to be sirdar of the land in question on the
basis of their adverse possession and the
ex-parte judgment and decree/order passed
by the appellate authority within two
weeks.

 3. List this petition in the first
week of April, 2022 peremptorily."

13. Thereafter the case was
adjourned on plural occasions, but the
private opposite parties did not file any
counter affidavit and they have not brought
on record the orders passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate rejecting the claim of
the opposite parties to be Sirdar of the land
in question and the ex-parte judgment and
decree/order passed by the appellate
authority. Thus there is no material
available on record to substantiate the pleas
taken by the private respondents and the
pleas taken by the State in the Writ Petition
remain uncontroverted.

14. While assailing the validity of
the impugned appellate order, Sri S. K.
Khare, the learned Standing Counsel for the
petitioner - State of U. P., has submitted
that after dismissal of the suits filed under
Section 229-B of the the U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act
filed by the claimants, the appeals filed by
them were allowed without any contest by
the tenure holder, which indicates that the
tenure holder had colluded with the
claimants. He has further submitted that the
Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to
recall / review the earlier order dated
23.05.1998.

15. Per contra, Sri V.K. Pandey,
the learned counsel for the respondents, has
submitted that the State and the Gaon
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn., Lucknow & Ors.
411
Sabha are necessary parties to a Suit under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and
as the State had contested the appeal, the
appellate order was not an ex-parte order.

16. Before proceeding to decide
the controversy, it will be appropriate to
have a look at the provision contained in
Section 5(6) of the U. P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, which is
being reproduced below: -

 "(6) In determining the ceiling
area applicable to a tenure-holder, any
transfer of land made after the twentyfourth day of Jan., 1971, which but for the
transfer would have been declared surplus
land under this Act, shall be ignored and
not taken into account;

 Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to-

 (a) a transfer in favour of any
person (including Government) referred to
in sub-sec. (2).

 (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 the immediate or deferred benefit of
the tenure holders or other members of his
family.

 Explanation I- For the purposes
of this sub-section the expression 'transfer
of land made after the twenty-fourth day
of Jan. 1971' includes-

 (a) a declaration of a person as a
cotenure holder made after the twentyfourth day of Jan., 1971 in a suit or
proceeding irrespective of whether such
suit or proceeding was pending on or was
instituted after the twenty-fourth day of
January, 1971;

 (b)
any
admission,
acknowledgment,
relinquishment
or
declaration in favour of a person to the
like effect made in any other deed or
instrument or in any other manner.

 Explanation II- The burden of
proving that a case falls within Cl. (b) of
the proviso shall rest with the party
claiming its benefit."

17. The claimants had filed suits
under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act claiming to have acquired rights in
respect of the land in question by adverse
possession. The suits were dismissed by
means
of
orders
dated
20.04.1972,
31.12.1973 and 05.07.1974. The claimants
filed appeal against the aforesaid orders
dismissing their suits. The tenure holder did
not contest the appeal and thus he impliedly
admitted the contention of the claimants
that they had perfected their title by adverse
possession. Thus the appeal was allowed on
the basis of the implied admission made by
the tenure holder regarding the claimant's
claim of being in adverse possession of the
tenure-holder's land.

18. The declaration of the
claimant's title by the appellate orders
dated
01.08.1975,
20.12.1973
and
24.03.1975 on the basis of the impliedly
admitted plea of adverse possession would
certainly
fall
within
the
expression
"transfer of land made after the twentyfourth day of Jan. 1971" on the basis of an
admission,
acknowledgment,
relinquishment or declaration in favour of a
person to the like effect made in any other
manner
occurring
in
Explanation
I
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appended to Section 5(6) of the Ceiling Act
and, therefore, this will be a transfer of land
made after the twenty-fourth day of Jan.,
1971, which is liable to be ignored and not
taken into account while determining the
surplus land of the tenure holder.

19. It is also significant to note that
the plea taken by the State in the writ
Petition that the proceedings under Section
229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were
collusive, remains uncontroverted.

20. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, I am of the considered view that
the Prescribed Authority had rightly held
that the claimants had colluded with the
tenure holders and for this reason, the
tenure holder Murlidhar Hakim did not
contest the appeals and the appellate Court
allowed the appeals and declared the
Seerdars of the land in question. The order
passed by the Additional Commissioner
was not an order on the merits of the case
and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, it did not bar the
jurisdiction of the Ceiling Authorities to
proceed
under
the
Ceiling
Act
in
accordance with the law.

21. The claimants had not filed any
documentary evidence in the shape of Khatauni
etc. before the Prescribed Authority to prove
their claims and they had based their claims
merely on the ex-parte orders passed by the
Additional Commissioner.

22. In spite of a specific direction
issued by this Court directing the private
respondents to bring on record the orders
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
rejecting the claim of the opposite parties to be
sirdar of the land in question on the basis of
their adverse possession and the ex-parte
judgment and decree/order passed by the
appellate authority, they have not brought the
same on record.

23. In these circumstances, there
appears to be no illegality in the order dated
24.02.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority
rejecting the claim of the private respondents
based on the plea of adverse possession.

24. The order dated 23.05.1998 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow
allowing Appeal No. 287/291/92-93 and setting
aside the order dated 24.02.1993 passed by the
Prescribed Authority, is unsustainable in law
and is liable to be quashed.

25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands allowed. The order dated 23.05.1998
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow
allowing Appeal No. 287/291/92-93 is quashed.
The order dated 24.02.1993 passed by the
Prescribed Authority Ceiling / Additional
Collector, Kheri in Case No. 266/92/11/39/14
under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act is
restored and affirmed.

26. The parties will bear their own
costs of litigation.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 412
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 3003820 of 1989

Ram Swaroop ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner: