# State Of U.P v. Anwar Alam & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 986
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 3000108 of 2002
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-anwar-alam-ors-54816
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Dipak Seth, A.R. Khan, Jagdish Prasad
Maurya, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Ratnesh
Chandra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to inclusion or exclusion of Plot
No. 508/5-350 hectares (13-173 acres) irrigated
land in the holding of the original tenure holder
Bhagwan Singh under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the
legality of the appellate order dated 14.10.1999
passed under S. 13 of the Ceiling Act.

Headnotes
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - Ss. 5(6), 5(8), 10(2),
and 13 - Surplus Land - Clubbing of
holdings - Title dispute - Effect of remand
- Doctrine of res judicata - Applicability -
Will Deed - Consideration by appellate
authority - Execution during pendency of
proceedings - Validity - Writ jurisdiction
under
Article
226
-
Scope
-
Reappreciation of findings of fact - Delay and
laches - Appellate authority as final factfinding body - Reliance on revenue entries
and mutation orders.
Held: The core dispute revolves around the
inclusion of plot no.508/5-350 hectares in the
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anwar Alam & Ors.
987
holding of the original tenure holder, Bhagwan
Singh under the Ceiling Act - The Prescribed
Authority, pursuant to remand, re-examined the
claim of respondents nos.1 to 3 touching the
title of Pradeep Singh and the effect of Will
Deeds produced - The plea of the petitioner that
the question of title attained finality by order
dated 31.10.1994 is untenable, as the said order
"stood set aside in appeal and the matter was
remanded
for
fresh
determination",
and
therefore, "the doctrine of res judicata has no
application" - The contention that the Will Deed
was not produced or examined is factually
incorrect, as "the impugned order specifically
refers to the Will Deed and the manner in which
the rights of respondents nos.1 to 3 were
recognized by the mutation authorities" -
Sections 5(6) and 5(8) of the Ceiling Act are not
attracted, as the appellate authority "has not
treated the Will Deed as a device to defeat the
Ceiling Act but has relied upon it, along with
mutation entries, only to ascertain the existing
title" - Findings of fact recorded by the appellate
authority do not suffer from perversity or
illegality, and "cannot be re-appreciated in writ
jurisdiction unless they suffer from manifest
illegality or perversity" - No substantial injury or
prejudice has been established by the State,
and "the prolonged delay and administrative
inaction in filing this writ petition further weaken
the petitioner's claim for equitable relief under
Article
226"
-
No
illegality,
perversity,
jurisdictional error or violation of statutory
provisions is made out, and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed - writ petition is
accordingly, dismissed - No order as to
cost.(Paras 25-33) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
No case cited

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Ceiling Act; Prescribed Authority; Appellate
Authority; Will Deed; Mutation; Res judicata;
Surplus land; Holding of tenure holder.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition filed
against the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by
the Additional Commissioner in Appeal No. 57,
Anwar Alam & Others v. State of U.P., excluding
plot no.508 from the holding of the original
tenure holder.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
C.S.C.; Sri Arya Shresth Tiwari,
learned Additional CSC
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Counsel;
Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan;
Sri Ratnesh Chandra;
Dipak Seth; A.R. Khan;
Jagdish Prasad Maurya

## Text

986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel
for
the
petitioner
are
fully
applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case.

17. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, in my
opinion, interest of justice would be served
by directing the petitioner to pay damages
to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of
settlement of land in dispute.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has agreed for payment of aforesaid
compensation after slight hesitation. The
argument of learned counsel was that
damages might be reduced a bit. However,
I do not see any reason to reduce the
damages.

19. Accordingly, it is directed that
within a period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order,
the petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- and on
payment of the said amount, the land shall
stand settled with the petitioner and the
impugned orders dated 27.07.2006 passed by
respondent No.2 in Revision No.148 of 2005-
2006 under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act
and judgment and order dated 12.04.2006
passed by respondent No.3 in case No.25 of
2005-06 under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR
Act contained as Anneuxre Nos.1 and 2 to
the writ petition shall stand set aside.

20. It is, however, made clear that if
the aforesaid amount is not deposited
within the period stipulated by this Court,
this order shall stand automatically
vacated and the writ petition should be
deemed to have been dismissed. The
aforesaid amount shall be deposited
before the Divisional Officer concerned
for beking kept in consolidated Gaon
fund constituted under Section 125-A of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

21. In the result, this writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 986
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 3000108 of 2002

State Of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Anwar Alam & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dipak Seth, A.R. Khan, Jagdish Prasad
Maurya, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Ratnesh
Chandra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to inclusion or exclusion of Plot
No. 508/5-350 hectares (13-173 acres) irrigated
land in the holding of the original tenure holder
Bhagwan Singh under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the
legality of the appellate order dated 14.10.1999
passed under S. 13 of the Ceiling Act.

Headnotes
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - Ss. 5(6), 5(8), 10(2),
and 13 - Surplus Land - Clubbing of
holdings - Title dispute - Effect of remand
- Doctrine of res judicata - Applicability -
Will Deed - Consideration by appellate
authority - Execution during pendency of
proceedings - Validity - Writ jurisdiction
under
Article
226
-
Scope
-
Reappreciation of findings of fact - Delay and
laches - Appellate authority as final factfinding body - Reliance on revenue entries
and mutation orders.
Held: The core dispute revolves around the
inclusion of plot no.508/5-350 hectares in the
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anwar Alam & Ors.
987
holding of the original tenure holder, Bhagwan
Singh under the Ceiling Act - The Prescribed
Authority, pursuant to remand, re-examined the
claim of respondents nos.1 to 3 touching the
title of Pradeep Singh and the effect of Will
Deeds produced - The plea of the petitioner that
the question of title attained finality by order
dated 31.10.1994 is untenable, as the said order
"stood set aside in appeal and the matter was
remanded
for
fresh
determination",
and
therefore, "the doctrine of res judicata has no
application" - The contention that the Will Deed
was not produced or examined is factually
incorrect, as "the impugned order specifically
refers to the Will Deed and the manner in which
the rights of respondents nos.1 to 3 were
recognized by the mutation authorities" -
Sections 5(6) and 5(8) of the Ceiling Act are not
attracted, as the appellate authority "has not
treated the Will Deed as a device to defeat the
Ceiling Act but has relied upon it, along with
mutation entries, only to ascertain the existing
title" - Findings of fact recorded by the appellate
authority do not suffer from perversity or
illegality, and "cannot be re-appreciated in writ
jurisdiction unless they suffer from manifest
illegality or perversity" - No substantial injury or
prejudice has been established by the State,
and "the prolonged delay and administrative
inaction in filing this writ petition further weaken
the petitioner's claim for equitable relief under
Article
226"
-
No
illegality,
perversity,
jurisdictional error or violation of statutory
provisions is made out, and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed - writ petition is
accordingly, dismissed - No order as to
cost.(Paras 25-33) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
No case cited

List of Acts
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Ceiling Act; Prescribed Authority; Appellate
Authority; Will Deed; Mutation; Res judicata;
Surplus land; Holding of tenure holder.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition filed
against the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by
the Additional Commissioner in Appeal No. 57,
Anwar Alam & Others v. State of U.P., excluding
plot no.508 from the holding of the original
tenure holder.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
C.S.C.; Sri Arya Shresth Tiwari,
learned Additional CSC
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Counsel;
Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan;
Sri Ratnesh Chandra;
Dipak Seth; A.R. Khan;
Jagdish Prasad Maurya

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arya Shresth Tiwari,
learned Additional CSC for the petitioner -
State and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd.
Aslam
Khan,
learned
counsel
for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ratnesh
Chandra,
learned
counsel
for
the
intervenor.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed
for
quashing
the
order
dated
14.10.1999 passed by respondent No.6
contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ
petition and to restore the order dated
31.10.1994 passed by the Prescribed
Authority contained as Annexure No.5 to
this writ petition.

3. The writ petition is directed against
the order dated 14-10-99 passed by opp.
party no.6 in appeal No.57; Pateshwar
Verma & others-Versus - State of U.P and
others, including No.508/5-350 hectares
(13-173 acres) irrigated land from the
surplus land declared by the prescribed
authority vide order dated 27-03-1999.
Certified Copy of the order dated 14-10-99
passed by opp. party no.6, is annexed as
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Annexure No.1 and the true copy of the
order
dated
27-03-1999
passed
by
Prescribed
Authority
is
annexed
as
Annexure No.2 to the writ petition,
respectively.

4. The notices under section 10(2) of
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as
the Ceiling Act) was issued to original
tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh,
predecessor-in-interest of opp. party no.4
and 5 and objection was filed by the
original tenure holder. True copy of the
objection filed by the original tenure holder
namely Bhagwan Singh dated 30/31-8-94 is
annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ
petition.

5. The original tenure holder namely
Bhagwan Singh had taken specific plea in his
objection dated 30/31-8-91 to the effect that
plot no.508/5-350 hectares (13-173 acres)
had wrongly been clubbed with the holding
of the objector as the said plot belong to
Pradeep Singh son of Jagdeep Singh.

6. Learned Prescribed Authority by
means
of
order
dated
31-03-1994
rejected the objection of the original tenure
holder namely Bhagwan Singh and held
that plot no.508 has rightly been included
in the holding of Shri Bhagwan Singh. True
copy of the order dated 31-03-1994 passed
by Prescribed Authority is annexed as
Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.

7. It is relevant to point out that the
specific issue regarding title of Bhagwan
Singh over plot no.508 situate in village
Bargadaha has become final as this issue
was not challenged at any forum.

8. Opposite party no.1 to 3 preferred
appeal No. 115 under Section 13 of the
Ceiling Act Anwar Alam and others Versus
State of U.P. and learned opp. party no.6 by
means of order dated 29-01-1997 set aside
the order of Prescribed Authority dated 3110-1994 and remanded the case for decision
afresh. True copy of the order dated 31-101991 is annexed as Annexure No.5 and true
copy of the order passed by Addl.
Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad
dated 29-01-1997 is annexed as Annexure
No.6 to the writ petition.

9. Opposite party no.1 to 3 filed writ
petition No.79 of 1995 Anwar alam & othersVersus- Addl. Commissioner and others and
the Hon'ble High Court by means of order
dated 21-06-1995 allowed the writ petition
and directed the appellate court to pass
appropriate order in the appeal. True copy of
the order dated 21-06-1995 is annexed as
Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.

10. The final order was passed by the
appellate court on 29-01-1997 as indicated
above, remanding the case for decision
afresh. The Prescribed Authority by means of
order dated 27-03-1999 rejected the claim of
opp. party nos.l to 3 and held that plot
no.508/5-350 hectares shall be excluded from
the surplus area and the deficiency be made
good from the other plots held by the original
tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh.

11. It is stated that the order dated 2703-1999 causes no substantial injury to the
petitioner as the area comprising plot
no.508 was made good by other plot of the
original tenure holder as indicated above.
True copy of the order dated 27-09-1999 is
on record as Annexure No.2 to this Writ
Petition.

12. Being aggrieved from the order
dated 27-03-1999, opp. party nos.l to 3
filed Appeal No. 57. Anwar Alam &
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Anwar Alam & Ors.
989
others-Versus- State of U.P. and learned
opp. party no.6 vide order dated 14-101999 set aside the order of the Prescribed
Authority dated 27-03-1999 and excluded
plot no.508 situated in village Bargadaha
from the holding of the original tenure
holder and reduced the surplus area to the
extent of 13-173 acres in terms of irrigated
Iand. Certified copy of the order dated 1410-1999 is already on record as Annexure
No.1 to this writ petition.

13. The copy of the order dated 14-101999 was received in the office of
Collector, Shravasti on 29-10-1999. It is
stated that the Collector got the check list
prepared and referred the matter to the
D.G.C. (Civil) for legal opinion and the
legal opinion was received in the office of
Collector, Shravasti on 27-4-2000. The
Collector, Shravanti referred the matter to
the Law Department for granting of
permission to file writ petition at the
earliest
opportunity
and
the
Law
Department issued G.O. dated 20-07-2000
directing to Collector, Shravasti to file writ
petition against the order dated 14-10-1999.

14. The Collector wrote letter dated
18-07-2001 and 08-10-2002 to the Chief
Standing Counsel requesting to file writ
petition against the order dated 14-10-1999
and instructed the Pairokar namely Shri
Mani Ram Verma, Naib Tahsildar (Ceiling)
to contact the office of Chief Standing
Counsel, High Court. It is stated that
Naib Tahsildar (Ceiling) approached the
office of Chief Standing Counsel on 0810-2002. The case was allotted to Law
Officer and the Law Officer instructed
Shri Mani Ram Verma, Naib Tahsildar to
bring
the
record
of
the
Ceiling
proceedings. However, the record was not
traceable and the draft of the writ petition
could not be prepared. It is stated that the
Collector, Shravasti enquired about the
progress
of
the
writ
petition
and
instructed Shri Mani Ram Verma, Naib
Tahsildar to look into the matter and
approach the Chief Standing Counsel to
get the writ petition filed. It is stated that
Shri Mani Ram Verma approached the
office of Chief Standing Counsel on 0810-2002 and the office of Chief Standing
Counsel assigned the case to the Law
Officer. Shri Mani Ram Verma traced the
record of the ceiling proceedings and
contacted the Law Officer alongwith the
record. The Law Officer dictated the Writ
petition on 23-10-2002 and the same is
being filed at the earliest opportunity.

15. Submission of learned Additional
CSC is that the Will Deed was not
produced and was not examined by the
prescribed authority as well as by the
appellate court, therefore, the impugned
order vitiates in law and is liable to be set
aside.

16. He next submitted that the land
adjusted in the land of Bhagwan Singh is
grobe and no error has been committed
by the authority concerned. The Will
Deed
executed
was
not
examined
therefore, there is suspicion in regard to
will deed of Pradeep Singh. He pointed
out that in the objection, there is
averment
that
the
Will
Deed
was
executed on 06.12.1990, therefore, it
cannot be taken into account and is
suspicious in nature.

17. He next submitted that learned
opp. party no.6, committed error of law
apparent on the face of the record and acted
illegally and with material irregularity in
ignoring the fact that the question of title
regarding plot no.508/5-350 hectarees had
been finally settled by the Prescribed
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority by means of order dated 31-101994 which had become final and binding
as res judicata.

18. He submitted that learned opp.
party no.6, acted illegally and with material
irregularity in relying upon the alleged
Will-deed
without
considering
the
genuineness and admissibility of the same
resulting in substantial injury to the
petitioner.

19. He further submitted that learned
opp. party no.6, committed error of law
apparent on the face of the record in acting
upon the alleged Will-deed dated 06-121990 which was executed during the
pendency of ceiling proceeding and was
liable to be ignored under Section 5(6) and
5(8) of the Ceiling Act. The judgement and
order passed by opp. party no.6, is based on
conjuctures and surmises and is perverse
and illegal.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that
the will deed was produced and was
examined and has taken notice in the
impugned orders therefore the submission
advanced by learned Additional CSC is
misconceived and devoid of merit.

21. He next submitted that both the
authorities have committed no error in
passing the impugned orders and the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.

22. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned
counsel for the intervenor submitted that
the property was in the name of Pradeep
Singh and in case it is included in the land
of Bhagwan Singh as seperate land and by
calculating the ceiling limits it can be
declared as surplus. The land of Pradeep
Singh subsequently was transferred by
executing sale deed and subsequently
purchased by some other persons cannot be
clubbed in the land of Bhagwan Singh.

23. Learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 submitted that on the basis of
Will Deed dated 07.12.1973 the land was
mutated in the name of Anwar Ali and
others and mutation has also been made to
the same effect, therefore, the land cannot
be clubbed along with land of Bhagwan
Singh.

24. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.

25. From the narration of facts and the
orders passed by the authorities at various
stages, it is evident that the core dispute
revolves around the inclusion of plot
no.508/5-350 hectares in the holding of the
original tenure holder, Bhagwan Singh
under the Ceiling Act. The record clearly
reflects that pursuant to the remand order of
the appellate authority dated 29.01.1997,
the Prescribed Authority was required to
re-examine the matter afresh with respect
to the claim of respondent nos.1 to 3
touching the title of Pradeep Singh over the
said land and the effect of the Will Deeds
produced in those proceedings. That
exercise was duly undertaken and the
appellate authority, as the final fact-finding
body, upon considering the revenue entries,
the Will Deeds relied upon by the
respondents and the mutation orders passed
much prior to the ceiling proceedings,
arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the
land in question did not constitute part of
the holding of Bhagwan Singh.

26. The plea of the petitioner that the
question of title attained finality in the
earlier order of the Prescribed Authority
11 All. Chirag Aashiana Pvt. Ltd. A-4 Vs. Smt. Santosh & Anr.
991
dated 31.10.1994 is untenable inasmuch as
that very order stood set aside in appeal and
the matter was remanded for fresh
determination. Once the earlier order was
wiped out and the field became open for reconsideration, the doctrine of res judicata
has no application. The appellate authority,
therefore, cannot be said to have exceeded
its jurisdiction merely because it examined
the Will Deeds or the title of Pradeep Singh
while deciding Appeal No.57.

27. The argument that the Will Deed was
not produced or considered is factually
incorrect, as the impugned order specifically
refers to the Will Deed and the manner in
which the rights of respondents nos.1 to 3
were recognized by the mutation authorities.
The petitioner has failed to show that these
findings are either perverse or based on no
evidence.

28. The submission that the Will Deed
should be ignored under Sections 5(6) and
5(8) of the Ceiling Act on account of its
execution during the pendency of ceiling
proceedings also does not aid the petitioner.
The appellate authority has not treated the Will
Deed as a device to defeat the Ceiling Act but
has relied upon it, along with mutation entries,
only to ascertain the existing title of Pradeep
Singh over the land at the relevant time. This
Court cannot re-appreciate such findings in
writ jurisdiction unless they suffer from
manifest illegality or perversity, none of which
have been demonstrated by the petitioner.

29. On the contrary, the materials placed
suggest that the land had already been treated
as
belonging
to
Pradeep
Singh
and
respondents nos.1 to 3 much before the final
ceiling
calculations
and
the
appellate
authoritys reliance upon those materials
cannot be faulted. It also deserves notice that
the petitioner has failed to establish any
substantial injury or prejudice occasioned to
the State by the impugned order. The surplus
land was recalculated and the deficiency, if
any, was duly adjusted from other holdings of
the tenure holder. The prolonged delay and
administrative inaction in filing this writ
petition further weaken the petitioners claim
for equitable relief under Article 226
Constitution of India.

30. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court is not meant to rectify belated
administrative lapses, especially when the
impugned order is supported by cogent
reasoning and does not infringe any statutory
mandate.

31. In view of the above considerations,
this Court finds no illegality, perversity,
jurisdictional error, or violation of statutory
provisions in the appellate order dated
14.10.1999. The findings recorded therein are
based on proper appreciation of the record,
independently supported by revenue entries
and mutation orders and do not warrant
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

32. The writ petition is accordingly,
dismissed.

33. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 991
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9397 of 2025

Chirag Aashiana Pvt. Ltd. A-4 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Santosh & Anr. ...Respondents