# United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 628
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3149 of 2017
- **Bench:** Vivek Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-company-ltd-v-smt-sanwala-devi-ors-47485
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 50 years of
1 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors.
629
age and he was self-employed-Tribunal
awarded

compensation
of
Rs.
30,46,622/- with 6% rate of interest per
annum- the deceased was survived by his
wife and four sons-future prospects of a
deceased shall be added 20% if the
deceased was more than 50 years of age
as per principles enunciated by Hon'ble
Apex Court in Urmila Shukla case-Hence,
the
Tribunal
rightly
awarded
compensation.(Paras 1 to 19)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.14,04,000/-
+
1,05,000/-
=
Rs.
15,09,000/-

13. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

14. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The
respondent-The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. shall deposit the amount within a
period of 12 weeks from today with interest
at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the amount is
deposited.

15 . In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this
High Court in total amount of interest,
accrued on the principal amount of
compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance company/owner is/are entitled to
deduct appropriate amount under the head
of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s
194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimants to withdraw the amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income- Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of
2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another) and in First Appeal
From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari
Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General
Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021
while disbursing the amount.
----------
(2022)01ILR A628
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3149 of 2017

United India Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Sri Neeraj
Chandra Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 50 years of
1 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors.
629
age and he was self-employed-Tribunal
awarded

compensation
of
Rs.
30,46,622/- with 6% rate of interest per
annum- the deceased was survived by his
wife and four sons-future prospects of a
deceased shall be added 20% if the
deceased was more than 50 years of age
as per principles enunciated by Hon'ble
Apex Court in Urmila Shukla case-Hence,
the
Tribunal
rightly
awarded
compensation.(Paras 1 to 19)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma Vs DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121

2. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
(2013) 7 SCC 476

3. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680

4. Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan,(2013) 9
SCC 65

5. New India Ins. Co. Vs Urmila Shukla, Civil
Appeal No. 4634 of 2021,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant, Sri Ramesh Chandra Pathak,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to
5, and Sri Neeraj Chandra Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 10.

2. The present first appeal from order
arises out of the judgment and award dated
18.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Basti
(hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No. 18 of 2015 (Smt. Sanwala
Devi and others vs. Ram Sumarin and
others)
awarding
Rs.30,46,622/-
as
compensation from the appellant with
simple interest at the rate of 6 percent
from the date of filing of petition till the
date of its actual payment.

3. The respondent nos.1 to 5, the
claimants, filed a Claim Petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988
before
the
Tribunal,
seeking
compensation amounting to Rs.64,99,476/-
along with 15 percent interest per annum
from the date of filing of petition till its
payment.

4. The claimants are the heirs and
legal representatives of late Ramraj, son of
Jagmohan, who died as a result of an
accident on 14.12.2014. The deceased
Ramraj along with his son Dilip Kumar
(Respondent no.3) was going to the house
of his relative on a Scooty bearing
registration no. UP 51 X/4621. He was
pillion rider of the Scooty, which was
driven by his son. When they reached near
Sukrauli
village,
a
tractor
bearing
registration no. UP 51Q/5794 took a
sudden turn and collided with the Scooty.
Ramraj was seriously injured in the mishap.
He was brought to the district hospital
where he was declared dead by the doctor.
He is survived by his wife Smt. Sanwala
Devi, respondent no.1 aged about 50 years,
and four sons namely, Rajesh Kumar aged
about 30 years, Dilip Kumar aged about 20
years, Ajay Kumar aged about 18 years and
Sangram Kumar aged about 15 years.

5. It was asserted in the claim petition
that the deceased died due to negligent and
rash driving of respondent no.10- Ashwani
Kumar (tractor driver). It was brought to
the notice of the Tribunal that the
respondent no.10- Ashwani Kumar was
under the employment of respondent nos. 6
to 9. The appellant i.e. United India
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Insurance Co. Ltd., is the insurer of the
offending vehicle. The Tribunal allowed
the claim petition by the impugned
judgment and award.

6. In the instant appeal the learned
counsel for the appellant has raised two
issues:

(i) The Tribunal has considered
the income of the deceased as Rs.3,11,280/-
per annum and the slab of income tax was
nil up to Rs.2,50,000/-, hence the taxable
amount be deducted towards income tax.

(ii) The Tribunal has provided
20% of the income for future prospect,
which is not sustainable as the age of the
deceased was 51 years at the time of
incident and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121
held that there is no provision for future
prospect after the age of 50 years.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for
the
respondents-claimants
has
submitted that the award passed by the
learned Tribunal is legally sustainable and
calls for no interference.

8.

Rival
submissions
fall
for
consideration. The accident is not in
dispute. The appellant has not challenged
the liability imposed on it. Hence, only the
aforesaid issues are to be dealt with.

Issue No.1:

9. The deceased was a peon in the
office of Rajkiya Ayurvedik Evam Unani
Officer, Basti and the only source of income
was his salary. The Tribunal on the basis of
the last pay certificate of the month of
November 2014 issued on 18.03.2017 as well
as on the basis of the statement of PW-3
Mahmood Jafar dated 06.04.2017, a Junior
Clerk in Rajkiya Ayurvedik Evam Unani
Karyalaya, assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs 3,11,280/- per annum.

10. It becomes pertinent to note here
that neither the appellant- insurance company
nor any of the respondents in the claim
petition brought to the notice of the Tribunal
that the income tax payable by the deceased
Ramraj was not deducted at source by the
employer i.e. Rajkiya Ayurvedik Evam
Unani Karyalaya. No such statement was also
made by PW-3, who placed on record the last
pay certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal
on the perusal of the last pay certificate did
not find that the income tax on the estimated
income of the employee was not deducted
from the salary of the employee. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the
presumption will be that the employer -
Rajkiya Ayurvedik Evam Unani Karyalaya at
the time of payment of salary deducted the
income tax on the estimated income of the
deceased employee.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Case of Vimal Kanwar and others v.
Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7 SCC
476, has held as under -

"22. The third issue is "whether the
income tax is liable to be deducted for
determination of compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act".

23. In Sarla Verma v. DTC,
[(2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770
: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] this Court held:
(SCC p. 133, para 20)

"20. Generally the actual income
of the deceased less income tax should be
the starting point for calculating the
compensation."
1 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors.
631

This Court further observed that:
(SCC p. 134, para 24)

"24.... Where the annual income
is in taxable range, the words ''actual
salary' should be read as ''actual salary
less tax'."

Therefore, it is clear that if the
annual income comes within the taxable
range, income tax is required to be
deducted for determination of the actual
salary. But while deducting income tax
from the salary, it is necessary to notice the
nature of the income of the victim. If the
victim is receiving income chargeable
under the head "salaries" one should keep
in mind that under Section 192(1) of the
Income
Tax
Act,
1961
any
person
responsible
for
paying
any
income
chargeable under the head "salaries" shall
at the time of payment, deduct income tax
on estimated income of the employee from
"salaries" for that financial year. Such
deduction is commonly known as tax
deducted at source ("TDS", for short).
When the employer fails in default to
deduct the TDS from the employee's salary,
as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the
penalty for non-deduction of TDS is
prescribed under Section 201(1-A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case
the income of the victim is only from
"salary", the presumption would be that the
employer under Section 192(1) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax
at source from the employee's salary. In
case if an objection is raised by any party,
the objector is required to prove by
producing evidence such as LPC to suggest
that the employer failed to deduct the TDS
from the salary of the employee. However,
there can be cases where the victim is not a
salaried person i.e. his income is from
sources other than salary, and the
annual income falls within taxable range,
in such cases, if any objection as to
deduction of tax is made by a party then the
claimant is required to prove that the
victim has already paid income tax and no
further tax has to be deducted from the
income.

24. In the present case, none of the
respondents brought to the notice of the
Court that the income tax payable by the
deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at
source by the employer State Government.
No such statement was made by Ram Avtar
Parikh, PW 2, an employee of the Public
Works Department of the State Government
who placed on record the last pay certificate
and the service book of the deceased. The
Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the
last pay certificate, have not noticed that the
income tax on the estimated income of the
employee was not deducted from the salary
of the employee during the said month or
financial year. In absence of such evidence,
it is presumed that the salary paid to the
deceased Sajjan Singh as per last pay
certificate was paid in accordance with law
i.e. by deducting the income tax on the
estimated income of the deceased Sajjan
Singh for that month or the financial year.
The appellants have specifically stated that
the assessment year applicable in the instant
case is 1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as
held by the High Court. They have also
taken specific plea that for Assessment Year
1997-1998 the rate of tax on income more
than Rs 40,000 and up to Rs 60,000 was
15% and not 20% as held by the High
Court. The aforesaid fact has not been
disputed by the respondents.

25. In view of the finding as
recorded above and the provisions of the
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we
hold that the High Court was wrong in
deducting 20% from the salary of the
deceased
towards
income
tax,
for
calculating the compensation. As per law,
the presumption will be that employer State
Government at the time of payment of
salary deducted income tax on the
estimated income of the deceased employee
from the salary and in absence of any
evidence, we hold that the salary as shown
in the last pay certificate as Rs 8920 should
be accepted which if rounded off comes to
Rs 9000 for calculating the compensation
payable to the dependant(s)."

12. The reason given in the judgment
of the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar
(Supra) squarely applies to the facts of the
present case. Hence, following the said
judgment the first issue is decided in
negative and against the appellant.

Issue No. 2:

13. In the case of Sarla Verma
(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not
provide any scope of compensation for a
person who is above 50 years of age.

14. The aforesaid issue was further
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi and
Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed in paragraphs-31
and 55 to 58 of the judgment and has held
as under :

"31. Though we have devoted
some space in analyzing the precedential
value of the judgments, that is not the thrust
of the controversy. We are required to
keenly dwell upon the heart of the issue
that
emerges
for
consideration.
The
seminal controversy before us relates to the
issue where the deceased was selfemployed or was a person on fixed salary
without provision for annual increment,
etc., what should be the addition as regards
the future prospects. In Sarla Verma v.
DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Court has
made it as a rule that 50% of actual salary
could be added if the deceased had a
permanent job and if the age of the
deceased is between 40-50 years and no
addition to be made if the deceased was
more than 50 years. It is further ruled that
where deceased was self-employed or had
a fixed salary (without provision for annual
increment, etc.) the courts will usually take
only the actual income at the time of death
and the departure is permissible only in
rare and exceptional cases involving
special circumstances.

*** *** ***

55. Section 168 of the Act deals
with the concept of "just compensation"
and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and
equitability on acceptable legal standard
because such determination can never be in
arithmetical exactitude. It can never be
perfect. The aim is to achieve an
acceptable
degree
of
proximity
to
arithmetical precision on the basis of
materials
brought on
record
in
an
individual case. The conception of "just
compensation" has to be viewed through
the prism of fairness, reasonableness and
non-violation
of
the
principle
of
equitability. In a case of death, the legal
heirs of the claimants cannot expect a
windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation
granted
cannot
be
an
apology
for
compensation. It cannot be a pittance.
Though the discretion vested in the tribunal
is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part
1 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors.
633
of the tribunal to be guided by the
expression, that is, "just compensation".
The determination has to be on the
foundation of evidence brought on record
as regards the age and income of the
deceased and thereafter the apposite
multiplier to be applied. The formula
relating to multiplier has been clearly
stated in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121 and it has been approved in
Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v.
Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65: (2013) 4
CC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 CC (Cri) 826].
The age and income, as stated earlier, have
to be established by adducing evidence.
The tribunal and the courts have to bear in
mind that the basic principle lies in
pragmatic
computation
which
is
in
proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted
norm that money cannot substitute a life
lost but an effort has to be made for grant
of just compensation having uniformity of
approach. There has to be a balance
between the two extremes, that is, a
windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and
the modicum. In such an adjudication, the
duty of the tribunal and the courts is
difficult and hence, an endeavour has been
made by this Court for standardisation
which in its ambit includes addition of
future prospects on the proven income at
present. As far as future prospects are
concerned, there has been standardisation
keeping in view the principle of certainty,
stability and consistency. We approve the
principle of "standardisation" so that a
specific
and
certain
multiplicand
is
determined for applying the multiplier on
the basis of age.

56. The seminal issue is the
fixation of future prospects in cases of
deceased who are self-employed or on a
fixed salary. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121 has carved out an exception
permitting the claimants to bring materials
on record to get the benefit of addition of
future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed
any future prospects in respect of the said
category.

57. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration, we are disposed to think
when
we
accept
the
principle
of
standardisation, there is really no rationale
not to apply the said principle to the selfemployed or a person who is on a fixed
salary. To follow the doctrine of actual
income at the time of death and not to add
any amount with regard to future prospects
to
the
income
for
the
purpose
of
determination of multiplicand would be
unjust. The determination of income while
computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will
come within the ambit and sweep of just
compensation as postulated under Section
168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who
had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant
of annual increment, there is an acceptable
certainty. But to state that the legal
representatives of a deceased who was on a
fixed salary would not be entitled to the
benefit of future prospects for the purpose
of computation of compensation would be
inapposite. It is because the criterion of
distinction between the two in that event
would be certainty on the one hand and
staticness on the other. One may perceive
that the comparative measure is certainty
on the one hand and uncertainty on the
other but such a perception is fallacious. It
is because the price rise does affect a selfemployed person; and that apart there is
always an incessant effort to enhance one's
income for sustenance. The purchasing
capacity of a salaried person on permanent
job when increases because of grant of
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
increments and pay revision or for some
other change in service conditions, there is
always a competing attitude in the private
sector to enhance the salary to get better
efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a
person who is self-employed is bound to
garner his resources and raise his
charges/fees so that he can live with same
facilities. To have the perception that he is
likely to remain static and his income to
remain
stagnant
is
contrary
to
the
fundamental concept of human attitude
which always intends to live with dynamism
and move and change with the time.
Though it may seem appropriate that there
cannot be certainty in addition of future
prospects to the existing income unlike in
the case of a person having a permanent
job, yet the said perception does not really
deserve acceptance. We are inclined to
think that there can be some degree of
difference as regards the percentage that is
meant for or applied to in respect of the
legal representatives who claim on behalf
of the deceased who had a permanent job
than a person who is self-employed or on a
fixed salary. But not to apply the principle
of standardisation on the foundation of
perceived
lack
of
certainty
would
tantamount to remaining oblivious to the
marrows of ground reality. And, therefore,
degree-test is imperative. Unless the
degree-test is applied and left to the parties
to adduce evidence to establish, it would be
unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has
to have the inbuilt concept of percentage.
Taking into consideration the cumulative
factors, namely, passage of time, the
changing society, escalation of price, the
change in price index, the human attitude
to follow a particular pattern of life, etc.,
an addition of 40% of the established
income of the deceased towards future
prospects and where the deceased was
below 40 years an addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to
50 years would be reasonable.

58. The controversy does not end
here. The question still remains whether
there should be no addition where the age
of the deceased is more than 50 years.
Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)
6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] thinks it
appropriate not to add any amount and the
same has been approved in Reshma
Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan,
(2013) 9 SCC 65]. Judicial notice can be
taken of the fact that salary does not
remain the same. When a person is in a
permanent
job,
there
is
always
an
enhancement due to one reason or the
other. To lay down as a thumb rule that
there will be no addition after 50 years will
be an unacceptable concept. We are
disposed to think, there should be an
addition of 15% if the deceased is between
the age of 50 to 60 years and there should
be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case
of self-employed or person on fixed salary,
the addition should be 10% between the
age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can
be consistency in the approach by the
tribunals and the courts."

15. However, it is pertinent to
mention here that in a recent judgment the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New
India Insurance Company vs. Urmila
Shukla, Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021,
decided on 6th August 2021, considered the
issue by placing reliance upon Rule 220A
of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1998
specially Rule 3(iii), which is to the
following effect:

"(3) The future prospects of a
deceased, shall be added in the actual
1 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sanwala Devi & Ors.
635
salary or minimum wages of the deceased
as under:

(iii) More than 50 years of age:
20% of the salary."

16. In Urmila Shukla (supra) the
Supreme Court, after considering the
holding in Pranay Sethi (supra), has held
as under:

"8. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that
the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not show
that the attention of the Court was invited
to the specific rules such as Rule 3(iii)
which contemplates addition of 20% of the
salary as against 15% which was stated as
a measure in Pranay Sethi. In his
submission, since the statutory instrument
has been put in place which affords more
advantageous treatment, the decision in
Pranay Sethi ought not to be considered to
limit the application of such statutory Rule.

9. It is to be noted that the
validity of the Rules was not, in any way,
questioned in the instant matter and thus
the only question that we are called upon to
consider is whether in its application, subRule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of the Rules must
be given restricted scope or it must be
allowed to operate fully.

10. The discussion on the point in
Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of
arriving at "just compensation" in terms of
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.

11. If an indicia is made
available in the form of a statutory
instrument which affords a favourable
treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi
cannot be taken to have limited the
operation of such statutory provision
specially when the validity of the Rules was
not
put
under
any
challenge.
The
prescription of 15% in cases where the
deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60
years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be
taken as maxima. In the absence of any
governing principle
available
in
the
statutory regime, it was only in the form of
an indication. If a statutory instrument has
devised a formula which affords better or
greater benefit, such statutory instrument
must be allowed to operate unless the
statutory instrument is otherwise found to
be invalid.

12. We, therefore, reject the
submission advanced on behalf of the
appellant and affirm the view taken by the
Tribunal as well as the High Court and
dismiss this appeal without any order as to
costs."

17. Therefore, applying the said
principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Urmila Shukla (Supra) this
Court is of the opinion that since the
deceased was 51 years of age at the time of
death, as such the addition of 20% for
future prospect has rightly been awarded by
the Tribunal placing reliance upon the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. Thus, the
second issue is also decided in negative and
against the appellant.

18. No other ground was pressed at
the time of arguments.

19. For the reasons as stated in the
preceding paragraphs, the instant appeal
fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

20. Let the lower Court record and
proceedings be sent to the Tribunal.
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