# Sunder Lal & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 636
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-24
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 808 of 1991
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunder-lal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47486
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section 5(6),
5(8), 12-A proviso (d) -It is settled that the
sale deed executed during pendency of the
Ceiling proceedings would be ignored and
transferred land shall be included in the holding
of the transferee i.e., the original tenure holder.
(Para 17)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)01ILR A636
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No. 808 of 1991
& other cases

Sunder Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Awadhesh Kumar, Anil Kr. Mishra, Rajeev
Chaturvedi, Vijay Bahadur Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Land Ceiling - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section 5(6),
5(8), 12-A proviso (d) -It is settled that the
sale deed executed during pendency of the
Ceiling proceedings would be ignored and
transferred land shall be included in the holding
of the transferee i.e., the original tenure holder.
(Para 17)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Hayat Khan (Minor) Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. 1991 (9) LCD 395

2. Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh Vs Prescribed
Authority & ors. (F.B., L.B.) 1968 RD 171

3. Mohd. Muste Hassan & ors. Vs The Addl.
Commissioner, Meerut & ors. 1995 RD 186

4. Jogendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
1983 All.L.J. 1297

5. Smt. Prema Devi Vs A.D.J., Hamirpur & anr.
2005 (2) AWC 1411
6. Deo Singh & ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner,
Jhansi & ors. 2004 (96) RD 228

7. Chaudhary Mohammad Mumtaz Husain Vs
SDO/Press Authority & ors. 1988 (6) LCD

8. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
1981 All.L.J. 1139

9. Nakchhed Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1978
All.L.J. 776

10. Ravindra Singh Vs Phool Singh & anr. (1995)
1 SCC 251

11. Ghasi Ram & ors. Vs Prescribed Authority &
ors. 1988 RD 314

12. Smt. Ram Kali Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1982 All.
L.J. 134

13. Rajendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1999 (1)
AWC 188 (SC)

14. Sanjay Kumar & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
1995 RD 478 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition No.808 (MS) of
1991, writ petition No.807 (MS) of 1991,
writ petition No.809 (MS) of 1991 and writ
petition No.810 (MS) of 1991 arises out of
the common judgment and order dated
27.10.1989 passed by the Prescribed
Authority/opposite party no.3 by means of
which four applications of the petitioner
under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960
(hereinafter referred as the Ceiling Act)
have been dismissed and the order dated
30.01.1991, passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow/opposite party no.2 in
1 All. Sunder Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
637
four appeals filed by the petitioner.
Therefore, they have been clubbed together
and are being decided together by a
common judgment and order.

3. The brief facts of the case, for
adjudication of the aforesaid cases as
alleged in the writ petitions are that
Kunwar Yudhendra Bahadur Singh son of
Jayendra Bahadur Singh was the original
tenure holder of the land in dispute who
acquired the disputed property by means of
a partition decree dated 07.04.1973 in Civil
Suit No.11-B/52 from the court of Civil
Judge, Kheri. He executed a registered sale
deed of the plot no.68/4.43 acres in favour
of the petitioner on 06.12.1983. The
application under Section 11(2) of the
Ceiling Act was filed on the ground that the
petitioner is a tenure holder/bhumidhar of
the land in dispute situated in village
Bhansariya,
Pargana-Kheri,
TehsilLakhimpur, District-Kheri on the basis of a
registered sale deed. The land in dispute
has wrongly been included in the holdings
of the other co-tenure holders and declared
surplus which could not have been done.
An objection was filed by the State
opposing the application on the ground that
the sale deed was executed during ceiling
proceedings
because
the
Ceiling
proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the
Ceiling Act were pending since 1981 and
decided on 28.02.1986, therefore it was not
valid as such the application was liable to
be dismissed. Considering the same the
application was dismissed by means of the
order dated 27.10.1989. The petitioners
preferred four appeals under Section 13 of
the Ceiling Act before the opposite party
no.2. All the four appeals were dismissed
by a common judgment and order dated
30.01.1991. Hence the present four writ
petitions have been filed.

4. The writ petitions have been
contested by the respondent-State by filing
the counter affidavits and supplementary
counter affidavits, to which the rejoinder
affidavit was filed by the petitioners. To
which supplementary counter affidavit was
filed, but no response to that has been filed.

5. The sole argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner was that
the sale deed executed during the ceiling
proceedings is not void, however it can be
ignored for the purpose of Ceiling Act. But
on the choice, under Section 12-A proviso
(d) of the Ceiling Act, given on behalf of
the transferrer was liable to be considered
and the land of petitioner should have been
excluded in lieu of other land of transferrer
but it has not been considered and wrongly
ignored on the ground that the right of
choice has already been exercised by the
transferrer. Therefore the impugned orders
are not sustainable in the eyes of law and
liable to be quashed with a direction to the
Prescribed Authority to accept the choice
of the transferrer and take his another land
in place of the land of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Mohd. Hayat Khan (Minor) Versus State
of U.P. and others; 1991 (9) LCD 395,
Raja
Yuveraj
Datt
Singh
Versus
Prescribed Authority and others(F.B.,
L.B.); 1968 RD 171, Mohd. Muste
Hassan and others Versus The Addl.
Commissioner, Meerut and others; 1995
RD186, Jogendra Singh and others
Versus State of U.P. and others; 1983
All.L.J.1297, Smt. Prema Devi Versus
A.D.J, Hamirpur and another; 2005(2)
AWC 1411, Deo Singh and others Versus
Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi and others;
2004
(96)
RD
228,
Chaudhary
Mohammad Mumtaz Husain Versus
SDO/Press Authority and others; 1988
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(6) LCD 374, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari
Versus State of U.P. and others; 1981
All.L.J. 1139, Nakchhed Singh Versus
State of U.P. and others; 1978 All.L.J.
776, Ravindra Singh Versus Phool Singh
and another; (1995) 1 SCC 251, Ghasi
Ram and others Versus Prescribed
Authority and others; 1988 RD 314 and
Smt. Ram Kali Versus State of U.P. and
others; 1982 All.L.J. 134.

6. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner. He had submitted that the sale
deed
executed
during
the
ceiling
proceedings is void under Section 5(8) of
the Ceiling Act and it cannot be legalized.
He further submitted that the choice once
exercised cannot be again exercised. He
had also submitted that the transferee
cannot exercise the choice because the
choice was already exercised by the
transferrer on the basis of which the land of
the petitioner was declared surplus. He had
also submitted that the possession of the
land in dispute was taken on 13.12.1986.
There is no illegality or error in the
impugned orders. The writ petitions are
misconceived and lacks merit, therefore
liable to be dismissed. Learned Additional
Chief Standing counsel had relied on
Rajendra Singh and others Versus State
of U.P. and others; 1999 (1) AWC 188
(SC) and Sanjay Kumar and another
Versus State of U.P. and others; 1995 RD
478(SC).

7. I have considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.

8. The ceiling proceedings under
Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act were started
against the original tenure holders in the year
1981 and the order was passed on 28.02.1986
declaring the surplus land, which was the
land, sold by Kunwar Yudhendra Bahadur
Singh to the petitioner by means of the
registered sale deed executed on 06.12.1983
i.e. during the ceiling proceedings. The
possession
was
taken
by
the
State
Government on 13.12.1986 as per statement
of Lekhpal and the documents filed before
the prescribed authority, which is recorded in
the order. The dispute relates to plot no.68
situated in village-Bhansariya, ParganaKheri, Tehsil-Lakhimpur, district-Kheri. The
applications under Section 11(2) of the
Ceiling Act was filed by the petitioner on
20.12.1986 on the ground that the petitioner
had purchased the land in dispute through
registered sale deed. Therefore it could not
have been declared as surplus land. Four
cases were registered. The case was contested
by the State on the grounds that the sale deed
was void under Section 5(8) of the Ceiling
Act, the sale deed was also defective and not
admissible because the trees on the plot were
not included and there was deficiency of
Stamp duty, the compromise decree was
made after the 24.01.1971 therefore it was
ignored and in Gata No.68 on area 4.43 acre
other co-tenure holders had also share. The
written statement was filed by the Power of
Attorney holder of Kunwar Yudhendra
Bahadur Singh stating therein that order in
regard to grove may be cancelled and in lieu
thereof other grove may be declared surplus.
But the same has not been accepted by the
Prescribed Authority on the ground that the
land in dispute has been declared surplus as
per option exercised by the original tenure
holder. Being aggrieved the appeal was filed
by the petitioner, which has also been
dismissed.

9. The ceiling area has been declared
following the provisions under Section 5(6)
of the Ceiling Act, as per option of the
1 All. Sunder Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
639
original tenure holders under Section 12-A
proviso (d) of the Ceiling Act. Section 5(6)
and Section 12-A proviso (d) of the Ceiling
Act are extracted below:-

" Section 5 - Imposition of
ceiling
(1)
On
and
from
the
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder
shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate
through-out Uttar Pradesh, any land in
excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.

..............................................................
.........................................

(6) In determining the ceiling
area applicable to a tenure-holder, any
transfer of land made after the twentyfourth day of January, 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
sub-section shall apply to--

(a) a transfer in favour of any
person (including Government) referred
to in sub-section (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 immediate or deferred benefit of
the tenure-holder or other members of his
family.

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

(a) a declaration of a person as a
co-tenure-holder made after the twentyfourth day of January, 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 clause (b)
of the proviso shall rest with the party
claiming its benefit.

"Section 12A

In determining the surplus land
under Section 11 or Section 12, the
Prescribed Authority shall, as far as
possible, accept the choice indicated by
the tenure-holder to the plot or plots
which he and other members of his
family, if any, would like to retain as part
of the ceiling area applicable to him or
them under the provisions of this Act,
whether indicated by him in his statement
under Section 9 or in any subsequent
proceedings :

Provided that--

(a) the Prescribed Authority shall
have regard to the compactness of the land
to be included in the ceiling area applicable
to the tenure-holder;
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) where the tenure-holder's wife
holds any land which is aggregated with the
land held by the tenure-holder for purposes
of determination of the ceiling area, and his
wife has not consented to the choice
indicated by the tenure-holder as to the plot
or plots to be retained as part of the ceiling
area applicable to them, then the Prescribed
Authority shall, as far as possible, declare
the surplus land in such manner that the
area taken out of the land held by the
tenure-holder's wife bears to the total
surplus area the same proportion as the area
originally held by her bore to the total land
held by the family;

(c) where any person holds land
in excess of the ceiling area including any
land mortgaged to the State Government or
to a 2[bank as defined in clause (c) of
Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural
Credit Act, 1973] or to a co-operative land
development bank or other co-operative
society or to the Corporation or to a
Government Company, the surplus land to
be determined shall, as far as possible, be
land other than that so mortgaged;

(d) where any person holds land
in excess of the ceiling area including land
which is the subject of any transfer or
partition referred to in sub-section (6) or
sub-section (7) of Section 5, the surplus
land determined shall, as far as possible, be
land other than land which is the subject of
such transfer or partition, and if the surplus
land includes any land which is the subject
of such transfer or partition, the transfer or
partition shall, in so far as it relates to the
land included in the surplus land, be
deemed to be and always to have been
void, and--

(i) it shall be open to the
transferee
to
claim
refund
of
the
proportionate amount of consideration, if
any, advanced by him to the transferor, and
such
amount
shall
be
charged
on
the 3[amount] payable to the transferor
under Section 17 and also on any land
retained by the transferrer within the
ceiling area, which shall be liable to be sold
in
satisfaction
of
the
charge,
notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 153 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ;

(ii) any party to the partition
(other than the tenure-holder in respect of
whom
the
surplus
land
has
been
determined) whose land is included in
surplus land of the said tenure-holder shall
be entitled to have the partition re-opened."

10. The sale deed of the land in
dispute was executed in favour of the
petitioner on 06.12.1983 during pendency
of the ceiling proceedings against the
original tenure holders. Sub-section (8) of
Section 5 provides that 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. Section 5(8) is extracted below:-

"Section 5 (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.

Explanation.-- For the purposes
of
this
sub-section,
proceedings
for,
determination of surplus land shall be
deemed to have commenced on the date of
1 All. Sunder Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641
publication of notice under Sub-section (2)
of Section 9 and shall be deemed to have
concluded on the date when an order in
relation to such tenure-holder is passed
under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 or
under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, or as
the case may be, under Section 13."

11. This amendment has been
incorporated by way of U.P.Act No.20 of
1976 (w.e.f.10.10.1975). The combined
reading of the aforesaid provisions shows
that in determining the ceiling area
applicable to a tenure holder any transfer of
land made after 24.01.1971 and during the
continuance of the ceiling proceedings shall
be ignored and such transferred land shall
be included in the holding of the transferrer
for the purposes of Ceiling Act and
declaring surplus land. Thereafter while
determining the surplus area a tenure
holder may exercise choice and the
Prescribed Authority shall as far as possible
accept the choice. If however surrender of
surplus land by tenure holder is not
possible or feasible without including the
transferred
land
then
the
Prescribed
Authority will accept such surrender and in
such an event the transfer of such land shall
be deemed to be null and void and the
transferee is entitled to compensation and
other rights as are provided under sub
clause (i) of clause (d) of the Proviso to
Section 12-A.

12. It is fortified by the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ravindra Singh Versus Phool Singh and
another; (1995) (1) SCC 251. The relevant
paragraph 6 is extracted below:-

"6. A combined reading of subsection (6) of Section 5 and clause (d) of
the proviso to Section 12-A yields the
following position (insofar as it is
relevant for the purpose of this appeal):

(a) In determining the ceiling area
applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer
of land made after 24-1-1971 shall be
ignored and such transferred land shall be
included in the holding of the transferor
except where such transfer is saved by the
proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5;

(b) In the matter of surrender,
however, the Prescribed Authority is
entitled to insist that the tenure-holder
surrender land which is not the subjectmatter of transfer referred to in Section
5(6);

(c) If, however, surrender of
surplus land by the tenure-holder is not
possible or feasible without including the
transferred land, then the Prescribed
Authority will accept such surrender, in
which event transfer of such land shall be
deemed to be null and void;

(d)
Where
the
Prescribed
Authority
accepts
the
surrender
of
transferred land, the transferee is entitled to
compensation and other rights as are
provided in sub-clause (1) of clause (d) of
the proviso to Section 12-A.

The
object
of
the
above
provisions is quite clear and consistent.
Any transfer effected after 24-1-1971 shall
be ignored for the purpose of determining
the ceiling area of the tenure-holder, but in
the matter of surrender, the Government
does not want, as far as possible, to accept
surrender of transferred land. This may be
for the reason that acceptance of surrender
of transferred land is likely to lead to
complications
and
disputes;
the
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government wants to accept the surrender
of lands which are free of any such
controversy. But if that does not prove
possible, the Government will accept the
surrender of transferred land even, in which
event the transfer of such land shall be
treated as null and void so as to vest clear
title in the Government. The transferee of a
land so surrendered is entitled to claim the
compensation money and other rights
mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (d)."

13. Similar view has been taken by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Versus State of
U.P. and others; (1982) 3 SCC 315 by a
short order, which reads as under:-

" The short point taken by Mr
Ashoke Sen in support of the petition is
that even assuming that the finding of the
prescribed authority that the transfer was
not bona fide is correct, the prescribed
authority was in error in not excluding the
land said to have been transferred from the
surplus area. The land which was the
subject-matter of transfer was covered by
Plot 460. The contention is well-founded
and must prevail. In these circumstances,
we set aside the judgment of the High
Court and that of the prescribed authority
and remit the case to the prescribed
authority to decide the surplus land in
accordance with Section 12-A(d) of the Act
by excluding the area which was the
subject of transfer as far as possible.

2. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly."

14. Similar view has been taken by
this court in the case of Mohd.Hayat Khan
(minor) Versus State of U.P. and others;
1991 (9) LCD 396, Mohd.Muste Hassan
and
others
Versus
The
Addl.
Commissioner, Meerut and others; 1995
RD 186, Jogendra Singh and others Versus
State of U.P. and others; 1983 All.L.J.1297,
Chaudhary Mohammadn Mumtaz Husain
Versus SDO/Press Authority and others;
1988(6) LCD 374 and Nakchhed Singh
Versus State of U.P. and others; 1978
All.L.J.776.

15. In the case of Sanjay Kumar and
another Versus State of U.P. and others;
1995 RD 478, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the question as to whether
voluntary transfers such as a court sale, is a
transaction valid under the provisions of
sub-section (6) and (8) of Section 5 of the
Ceiling Act and to be reckoned in
decreasing the surplus area and the Hon'ble
Supreme court concluded to say that the
sales voluntary or involuntary are required
to pass the test of being bona fide sales and
for adequate consideration so as to be
excluded from being computed in the
surplus area of the tenure holder and are to
be treated as void when taking place during
continuance of surplus area proceedings.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajendra Singh and others
Versus State of U.P. and others; 1999(1)
AWC 188 (SC) has held that the
prohibition contained in sub-Section (8) of
Section 5 of the Ceiling Act is absolute,
therefore the sale deeds executed in
violation thereof to be treated to be part of
the land held by the tenure holder and it
would be within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Prescribed Authority to take or carve
out the surplus area from any land of tenure
holder.

17. In view of above, it is settled that
the sale deed executed during pendency of
the Ceiling proceedings would be ignored
and the transferred land shall be included in
1 All. Sunder Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
the holding of the transferee i.e. the original
tenure holder. However, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the Case of Ravindra Singh Versus Phool
Singh and another; (1995) (1) SCC 251,
the Prescribed Authority is entitled to
accept the surrender of land which is not
the subject matter of transfer in lieu thereof
and if not possible the transferee is entitled
to compensation and other rights as are
provided in sub clause (i) of clause (d) of
proviso to Section 12-A.

18. A Full Bench of this court in the
case of Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh Versus
Prescribed Authority and others; 1968
RD 171, has held that clearly the scheme of
the Act is that the tenure holder remains the
owner (Bhumidhar) of the entire land held
by him retaining with him the entire bundle
of rights until a notification is issued under
Section 14 of the Act and the rights, title
and interest of the tenure holder even in
respect
of
the
surplus
land
stand
extinguished only from the date of the
notification under Section 14 of the Act. It
has also held that the Prescribed Authority
has no authority to deal with the rights of
the transferees. It had to treat the transfers a
nullity.

19. This court, in the case of Smt.
Prema Devi Versus A.J.D., Hamirpur
and anther; 2005(2) AWC 1411, has held
that the rights conferred upon the tenure
holder of making a choice by enacting part
of Section 12-A has to be balanced with the
right of a transferee to seek exclusion of the
plots purchased by him for a valuable
consideration from the surplus land in case
plots other than those purchased by him are
available for being declared surplus. Only
such a construction of Section 12A of the
Act will further the object of Clause (d) of
proviso to the said section and any other
construction will make it redundant. Thus
the normal rules is that the land forming
subject matter of transfer shall not be
included in the surplus land unless the
tenure holder is left with no other land or
the area available with him falls short of
area declared surplus.

20. This court, in the case of Smt.
Ram Kali Versus State of U.P. and
others; 1982 All. L.J. 134, has held that
the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Court did not have valid or sufficient
grounds for rejecting the revised choice
indicated by the petitioner because the
choice can be revised till such time his
rights stand extinguished under Section 14
of the Act. The relevant paragraph 5 is
extracted below:-

"The second reason, which the
Prescribed Authority gave, was that in the
revised choice certain plots were sought to
be declared as surplus which stood
transferred after 8-6-1973. The appellant
Court itself has held that the said ground
was not valid or good ground. In my view,
the Prescribed Authority and the appellate
Court did not have valid or sufficient
grounds for rejecting the revised choice
indicated by the petitioner. There is a
uniform case law of this Court on the point
that the petitioner can revise his choice till
such time as her rights stand extinguished
under S.14 of the Act. In the instant case,
from the record it is clear that the
Prescribed Authority held that the so-called
dispossession of the petitioner on 8-4-1977
was illegal. In this view of the matter, it has
to be held that there was o extinction of the
interest of the petitioner when she moved
the application dated 6-9-1979, and,
therefore, there was no good ground for
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rejecting the prayer made in the said
application."

21. Adverting to the facts of the
present case and upon consideration in
the light of above this court finds that
the Prescribed Authority has recorded a
categorical finding that on perusal of
files of proceedings under Section 10(2)
of Ceiling Act, it is apparent that 0.83
dic. of plot No.68 has been declared
surplus from the holding of Kunwar
Gokhale Bahadur Singh and 1.86 acre
was given to other two co-tenure holders
as their Ceiling area. It has also come in
the appellate order that 0.83 acre of plot
no.68 of Smt.Raj Kumari Ranja Devi
was declared surplus. Therefore the
dispute relates
to 2.77
acre
area.
Whereas it has been claimed by the
petitioner
that
Kunwar
Yudhendra
Bahadur
Singh
had
executed
the
registered sale deed of 4.43 acre of plot
no.68
in
favour
of
petitioner
on
06.12.1983, which was during pendency
of Ceiling proceedings against him.
Therefore the said land was to be treated
as of transferrer for the purpose of
Ceiling proceedings ignoring the sale
deed in view of Section 5(8) as it was
void. As claimed the land in dispute had
come to Kunwar Yudhendra Bahadur
Singh on the basis of a compromise
decree dated 07.04.1973 passed by Civil
Judge, Kheri, whereas such trasfer was
to be ignored under Section 5(6) of the
Ceiling Act. Accordingly the land in
dispute has rightly and in accordance
with law was not treated as exclusive of
Kunar Yudhendra Bahadur Singh. It was
dealt with accordingly treating it to be of
all the four tenure holders and it appears
the same has not been challenged by
anybody because nothing was brought
before this court in this regard.

22. The sale deed executed in favour
of the petitioner has also not been found
bona fide by the court's below on the
ground that there was a grove on the land in
dispute but the sale of only land was made,
whereas both should have been sold,
accordingly there was a deficiency of
stamps of Rs.40,000/-. It seems to be
correct because certified copy of the
written statement filed by the Power of
Attorney holder before the Prescribed
Authority, which has been filed with
supplementary affidavit dated 30.01.2013
by the petitioner. It has been disclosed in
the
written
statement
that
Kunwar
Yudhendra Bahadur Singh had got the
disputed grove in partition in the suit,
which was pending in the court of Civil
Judge w.e.f. 24.01.1971 to 08.07.1973. It
was further stated that the said grove may
be included in his ceiling area and the
notice may be cancelled and if it is not
possible another grove of answering
respondent may be kept in his ceiling area.
Therefore the sale deed was not bonafide
and
the
partition
on
the
basis
of
compromise was made in a proceeding
which had started on the cut of date i.e.
24.01.1971. Therefore apparently the whole
exercise was done in a fraudulent manner
to save the land from the provisions of
Ceiling Act, which was not permissible and
against the aims and objects of the Ceiling
Act.

23. In view of above, the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner is
misconceived and not tenable. The land of
other co-tenure holders was also included
and declared surplus or given to them in the
land in dispute. The land in dispute was
declared surplus on the option of tenure
holders. Therefore the vague revised option
of Power of Attorney holder of only one of
them that too without specification was not
1 All. Yashraj Inst. Of Prof. Studies & Ors. Vs. Indian Nursing Council New Delhi & Ors.
645
valid and acceptable in the facts and
circumstances of case. Therefore it has
rightly not been accepted.

24. Thus the impugned orders have
rightly been passed in accordance with law
by reasoned and speaking orders. this court
does not find any illegality or error in the
impugned orders, which may call for any
interference by this court. The writ
petitions are misconceived and lacks merit.

25. The writ petitions Misc. Single
No.808 of 1991, Misc. Single No.807 of
1991, Misc. Single No.809 of 1991 and
Misc.
Single
No.810
of
1991
are,
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A645
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Misc. Single No. 11790 of 2021

Yashraj Inst. Of Prof. Studies & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Indian Nursing Council New Delhi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashok Kumar Singh, Anshuman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Gyanendra
Kumar
Srivastava,
Samidha

A. Civil Law - Indian Nursing Council
(Minimum
Prerequisites
for
granting
suitability
to
Nursing
Programs),
Regulations, 2020: Regulation 22 - The
petitioner's application for grant of No
Objection certificate for conducting the M.Sc.
(Nursing) courses is required to be issued only
by the State Government strictly in accordance
with the provisions of Regulation 22 of
Regulation of 2020. (Para 22)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Karnataka State Assc. of the Management of
Nursing & Allied Health Science Institutions &
ors.
Vs
Indian
Nursing
Council
&
ors.
(distinguished)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anshuman
Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms.
Samidha, learned counsel for opposite
party no.1, learned State Counsel for
opposite party no.2 and Mr. Gyanendra
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for
opposite party no.3. Opposite party no.4
being merely proforma in nature, notices
to it stand dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed seeking the
following main relief:-

i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
opposite parties 2 and 3 to forthwith issue
a No Objection Certificate/Essentiality
Certificate and recognition for running the
M.Sc. (Nursing Programme) as mandated
under Regulation 22 of the Indian Nursing
Council Regulations.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
opposite parties not to create any obstacle
or hindrance in the imparting of training in
the M.Sc. (Nursing Programme) and in