# Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-11
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1000301 of 1991
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51050
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Ceiling law - UP Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 9,
10(2) & 19(3) - Ceiling proceeding -
Nature - Recorded tenure holder died
after publication of notice u/s 9 -
Abatement of proceeding claimed -
Permissibility - Proceeding treating the
legal heir as tenure holder, how far
liable to be continued - Nature of case,
how far being affected on the death of
tenure holder - Held, nature of the case
for determination of land in excess of
ceiling area does not change and it is
centric only to the recorded tenure
holder
and
not
to
his
legal
representatives - Even if the recorded
tenure
holder
had
died
after
the
publication of notice u/s 9 of Act, 1960,
the
proceedings
could
have
been
continued after effecting notice on his
legal heirs. (Para 10 and 11)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited:

## Text

1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had given after the Letter of Intent was
issued.

21. For what has been stated above,
the writ petitions succeed and are allowed
to the extent indicated above.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1000301 of 1991

Surendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S. Irfan Ahmad, Ankit Pande, Dr. Ramsurat
Pande, R.P. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Umesh Chandra

A. Ceiling law - UP Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 9,
10(2) & 19(3) - Ceiling proceeding -
Nature - Recorded tenure holder died
after publication of notice u/s 9 -
Abatement of proceeding claimed -
Permissibility - Proceeding treating the
legal heir as tenure holder, how far
liable to be continued - Nature of case,
how far being affected on the death of
tenure holder - Held, nature of the case
for determination of land in excess of
ceiling area does not change and it is
centric only to the recorded tenure
holder
and
not
to
his
legal
representatives - Even if the recorded
tenure
holder
had
died
after
the
publication of notice u/s 9 of Act, 1960,
the
proceedings
could
have
been
continued after effecting notice on his
legal heirs. (Para 10 and 11)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited:

1. Horam Singh & ors. Vs District Judge,
Moradabad & ors.; 1978 (4) ALR 918

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri R.S. Pandey, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Virendra
Bhatt, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri
S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for
the State and perused the material available
on record.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners assailing the orders
passed under the provisions of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act,
1960,
wherein
the
Prescribed
Authority by means of order dated
26.06.1985 has rejected the objections
preferred by the petitioners and the
Additional
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division, Faizabad has rejected the appeal
by means of order dated 10.12.1990
affirming
the
findings
of
the
said
Prescribed Authority.

3. Though facts in brief necessary for
the adjudication of the present case are that
once Brij Mohan Singh was a recorded
tenure holder with regard to land situated at
Village Mau-Atwara, Pargana Jagdishpur,
Tehsil Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur. A
notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960, was issued to Brij Mohan Singh,
the recorded tenure holder on 30.07.1974,
who had died prior to the issuance of notice
on 24.04.1974. The said notice was duly
received by his sons i.e., Rameshwar
Singh, Jagat Pal Singh and Ram Singh,
who filed their objections against the notice
issued under Section 10 (2) of the U.P.
1 All. Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1349
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 on 09.09.1974. The Prescribed
Authority duly considered the objections
raised by the legal heirs of the recorded
tenure holder and by means of order dated
30.12.1974 declared 4.66 hectares of the land
of recorded tenure holder as surplus. An
appeal was filed against the order of
Prescribed
Authority
dated
30.12.1974,
which was allowed and the matter was
remitted to the Prescribed Authority for
consideration afresh after treating the legal
heirs to be the tenure holders. The Prescribed
Authority
by
means
of
order
dated
31.12.1976 again decided the case against the
petitioners against which the appeal, which
was preferred before the District Judge,
Sultanpur was dismissed on the ground of
limitation.

4. It is in the aforesaid facts that the
petitioners filed a writ petition before this
Court, which was allowed by means of
judgment and order dated 21.2.1978 and
remitted the matter to the appellate authority
to be decided on merits after condoning the
delay. In the remand proceedings the IInd
Additional District Judge allowed the said
appeal preferred by the petitioners and
remanded the case to the Prescribed
Authority to decide the same after issuing
notices to the petitioners by means of his
judgment and order dated 24.11.1981. The
Prescribed
Authority
in
the
remand
proceedings had issued notices to the
petitioners and has duly considered all the
objections and again rejected the same by
means of impugned order dated 26.06.1985
against which the appeal has already been
dismissed on 10.12.1990 and both the orders
have been assailed by the petitioners before
this Court.

5. The main contention raised by the
petitioners is that once the recorded tenure
holder Brij Mohan Singh died on 24.4.1974
and the land was inherited by his three sons
Rameshwar Singh, Jagat Pal Singh and Ram
Singh, who claimed before the Prescribed
Authority that now they were the tenure
holders and proceedings under the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960, should be proceeded treating them to
be recorded tenure holders and their land
should be determined as to whether is in
excess of the ceiling limits or not.

6. This ground was raised by the
petitioners right up to the appellate stage and
even before the Prescribed Authority in the
remand proceedings. With this argument they
were able to persuade the appellate court who
passed the order dated 24.11.1981 to issue
notices to the petitioners before proceeding
further in the matter. It is only on the
direction of the appellate court that the
Prescribed Authority had issued notices to the
petitioners in the remand proceedings and all
the objections filed by the petitioners were
duly considered while rejecting the same.
Before
the
Prescribed
Authority,
the
petitioners had submitted that during lifetime
of Brij Mohan Singh, he has executed a sale
deed in favour of Hanuman Saran Singh on
09.07.1973 and the same land ought to be
excluded from the holding of the recorded
tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority did
not accept the contention of the petitioners
holding that the said sale deed was entered
into after the cut off date and accordingly
such a transfer could not be accepted by him
as per provisions of Section 5 of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960,
and
consequently,
rejected
the
contention of the petitioners in this regard.

7. This aspect of the matter was also
considered by the appellate authority, who
was of the considered view that as per
provisions of Section 5 (6) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, 1960, such a transaction could be
shown to have been bona fide and entered
into for adequate consideration before
benefit of the exclusion of the said land can
be granted to the recorded tenure holder.
He was of the view that the consideration
of Rs.9,000/- for a land measuring 4 bigha
6 biswa and 3 biswansi is inadequate and
apart from the fact that the said transfer
was made in favour of his close relative i.e.
grand son Hanuman Saran Singh, who was
the son of Rameshwar Singh, accordingly,
came to the conclusion that the said transfer
does not fall for exclusion within the ambit
of Section 5 (6) of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and
consequently, rejected the contention of the
petitioners. Before this Court also, there is
no material to indicate that the said
transaction was bona fide and for adequate
consideration while on the other hand on
death of respondent no. 3- Shyam Singh,
his son Hanuman Saran Singh has been
substituted
as
respondent
no.
3/1.
Undoubtedly, Hanuman Saran Singh is the
grand son of Brij Mohan Singh and he had
transferred the land in favour of his grand
son Hanuman Saran Singh to escape from
the clutches of Ceiling Act, 1960 and no
other material has been placed to upset the
findings recorded by the appellate court
and therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that no interference is
required with the findings of courts below
in this regard.

8. Considering the other contention
raised by the petitioners, it is noticed that
the proceedings under Section 10 under the
Act of 1960 are initiated pursuant to
issuance of notification under Section 9 of
the Act, 1960, which is a general notice to
the persons holding land in excess of the
ceiling area applicable to him on the date of
enforcement of the said Act. On the
publication under Section 9 of the said Act,
1960, the persons concerned are to submit
statement within thirty days of the said
publication with regard to his holdings and
the said statement should include all the
plots
which
they
claim
exemption.
Subsequent to publication of the notice
under Section 9 of the Act, 1960 and after
on the expiry of the period prescribed
therein, a notice to the tenure holder is
issued, who had failed to submit the
statement or has submitted incomplete
statement. It is on the objections filed in
pursuance to notice under Section 10 of the
Act, 1960, the proceedings are taken by the
Prescribed Authority where he considers
the objections filed by the tenure holders
and determines as to whether they are
holding any area in excess of the ceiling
area prescribed under the Act of 1960.

9. In the present case, admittedly the
recorded tenure holder Brij Mohan Singh
had died on 24.4.1974 after issuance of the
notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1960 and
prior to issuance of notice under Section 10
(2) of the Act, 1960. The manner in which
the Prescribed Authority would proceed in
this regard has been provided for under
Rule 19 of the U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling
On Land Holdings Rules, 1961.

Rule
19
(3)
of
the
U.P.
Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings
Rules, 1961 reads as under:-

"Where a tenure-holder dies
before he is served with a notice under subsection (2) of Section 10, the Prescribed
Authority may serve such notice on his
executor, administrator or other legal
representatives, and may proceed to
determine the ceiling area applicable to the
deceased person as if such executor,
administrator
or
other
legal
1 All. Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1351
representatives were the tenure-holder for
the purposes of service of such notice."

10. It is to be noticed that in case a
person dies before service of notice under
Section 10, the proceedings do not abate
but only the persons who can contest the
said case are the legal representative of the
recorded tenure holder and it is only after
service of notice as prescribed under Rule
19 (3) of the U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On
Land Holdings Rules, 1961 the proceedings
may continue thereon and it cannot be lost
sight of the fact that the rule further
provides that ceiling area of the deceased
recorded tenure holder has to be considered
by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, it is
clear that the nature of the case for
determination of land in excess of ceiling
area does not change and it is centric only
to the recorded tenure holder and not to his
legal representatives. The aspect regarding
service of notice on the deceased persons
was also considered by this Court and a
reference was made to a Division Bench,
which has been answered by the Court in
the case of Horam Singh and others Vs.
District Judge, Moradabad and others
reported in 1978 (4) ALR 918. This Court
considering the validity of the proceedings,
which are continued after the recorded
tenure holder had died was of the
considered view that the Rule 19 (1) of the
U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land
Holdings Rules, 1961, which provides for
continuance of the proceedings, even in
matters where the recorded tenure holder
died prior to the publication of notice
under Section 9 of the Act, 1960 was held
to be ultra-vires as it was clearly in conflict
to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act,
1960. But with regard to the tenure holder,
who dies subsequent to the general notice
issued under Section 9 (2) of the Act, 1960
and that sub-Section 2 of Section 10 of the
Act
clearly
envisage
that
the
State
Government has to frame rules prescribing
the manner in which the notice in respect of
such tenure holder has to be effected and
the State Government for the said purpose
has framed Rule sub Clause 3 and sub
Clause 4 of Rule 19 of the of U.P.
Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings
Rules, 1961 and consequently the Court
was of the view that there is no infirmity in
the said Rules and are intra-vires.

11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances
and specifically relying upon provisions of
Rule 19 (3) of the U.P. Imposition Of
Ceiling On Land Holdings Rules, 1961,
this Court is of the considered view that
even if Brij Mohan Singh, the recorded
tenure holder, had died after the publication
of notice under Section 9 of Act, 1960, the
proceedings could have been continued
after effecting notice on his legal heirs.
Undoubtedly, notice has been effected on
the legal heirs and the proceedings have
been continued and the ceiling area
pertaining to the recorded tenure holder
Brij
Mohan
Singh
has
been
duly
determined by the Prescribed Authority as
well as Appellate Authority, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere which
such an exercise.

12. Shri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior
Counsel has vehemently submitted that
despite
the
direction
issued
by
the
Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in his
judgment and order dated 24.11.1981, the
notice as prescribed were never served on
the petitioners.

13. This Court has gone through the
entire record and is of the considered view
that firstly the legal heirs have been
appearing before the various authorities on
numerous occasions. Even when they had
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeared before the Prescribed Authority
after service of notice, the Prescribed
Authority has narrated their objections in
detail in his impugned orders dated 26.6.1985
and nowhere it has been stated that had they
challenged the issuance of notice to them.
Even before the Appellate Authority this
question never raised. It is only in the present
petition, the averment has been made that the
notice was not served as prescribed. This
being a question of fact cannot be a permit to
be raised in the present writ petition for the
first time and also that apart from the bare
averments made in the present petition
neither has the notice been annexed and from
the order of the Prescribed Authority, it is
evident that the notices were in-fact served
and thereafter detail objections were filed and
accordingly the contentions of the learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners is clearly contrary to record, bereft
of merit and accordingly rejected.

14. Contrary to the said arguments, the
order of the Prescribed Authority dated
26.08.1985 duly records that he had complied
with the order of the Additional District
Judge, Sultanpur dated 24.11.1981 and he
had served notices in pursuance to which the
petitioners had duly appeared before him and
filed his objections. From the said order, it is
evident that he had complied with the order
of Appellate Authority dated 24.11.1981 and
duly served the notice on the petitioners. The
argument of petitioners in this regard does
not merit any interference and being devoid
of merit is accordingly, rejected. Considering
the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find
any reason to interfere with the order of the
Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate
Authority.

15. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1005250 of 1990

Prabhagiya Nideshak Van ...Petitioner
Versus
Van. Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari& Ors.
 ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., J.N. Srivastava, Ramesh Kumar

A. Labour Law - Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 - Sections 2 (k) & 6-E - Industry -
Ambit - Undertaking of sovereign function
by the Forest Department, how far exclude
it from definition of Industry - Charan
Singh's
case
relied
upon
-
Person,
continuously working for four years as a
Mali, how far entitled to be treated as
workmen - Held, where the workmen were
working on the post of Mali and were
involved in the task of plantation in the
forest and distribution of forest produce,
the
said
exercise
was
definitely
a
systematic activity and they have been
working for four years continuously, it
cannot be said that they were daily or
casual
employees
engaged
only
intermittently - High Court rejected the
arguments of petitioner that the Forest
Department is not an industry and so the
Act of 1947 is not applicable. (Para 9 and
11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited:

1. St. of Gujrat Vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar;
(2001) 9 SCC 713