Ramzan and others vs State of U.P. and

5. The connected Writ Petition No. 8673 of 1990 was filed by Sri Shitla Baksh (the original writ-petitioner who were the original tenure-holder) who has assailed the same orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.02.1986 whereby the objections filed by Sri Shitla Baksh Singh were rejected as well as the order dated 15.07.1979 and 27.08.1981.

6. Since the issues involved in the instant two petitions are common and one writ petition has been filed by the original tenure holder namely the one filed by Shitla Baksh Singh whereas the other petition has been filed by the subsequent purchaser namely the one filed by Ramzan & others, hence, both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

7. It was the case of Ramzan that he had purchased the property in question from Sri Lal Bageshwari Singh, Vishun Pratap Singh, Manjosh Pratap Singh, Raman Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Nath Singh and Lalit Kumar Singh, who were the minor sons of Shitla Bux Singh, through their guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar widow of Sri Harivansh Singh vide sale deed dated 11.07.1977 for a valuable sale consideration. On the other hand, it was alleged by Ramzan that without putting him to notice the order dated 27.08.1981 by which, surplus land was declared, was passed.

8. It was further stated that that the disputed plots in question are; Plot No. 208 situate in Village Jagdishpur, Plot No. 33-A and Plot No. 405-M situate in Village Beelgaon which fell in Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, Districh Bahraich. 3 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

9. It was the case set up, that Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar wife of Late Haribansh Singh was the recorded tenure-holder along with Sri Shitla Bux Singh. The consolidation operations took place in the village in question some time in the year 1960 and thereafter Plot No. 208 of village Jagdishpur was recorded in the name of Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar wife of Late Haribansh Singh.

10. Similarly, plot No. 33-A of Village Beelgaon was recorded in her name so also plot no. 405 which was recorded in the names of both Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh.

11. It was the case of the petitioners that, a registered gift deed was executed by Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux in favour of Sri Vishun Pratap Singh, Manjosh Pratap Singh, Raman Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Nath Singh Bageshwari Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Singh. The gift related to Plot Nos. 280 of Village Bhisampur whereas plot nos. 33-A and Plot No. 405 were of Village Beelgaon. It was also stated that the names of the donees as mentioned above were duly mutated. Sri Lal Bageshwari Singh and Raman Pratap Singh have died and their rights vested with their father Shitla Prasad Singh.

12. On 15.11.1976 notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to Sri Shitla Bux Singh. Sri Shitla Bux Singh filed his objections on 01.12.1975, however, the Prescribed Authority by means of its order dated 27.02.1976 declared a surplus land of 11.97 acres which also included plot no. 405.

13. An appeal was preferred by Shitla Bux Singh bearing Appeal No. 280 of 1976 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated

06.10.1976 and the matter was remanded for decision afresh. After remand, the Prescribed Authority once again declared 31.95 acres of land as surplus which included Plot Nos. 405, 33-M and 208.

14. Once again, objections were filed by Shitla Bux Singh stating that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 15.01.1979 was ex- parte. Upon an application, the Prescribed Authority modified its earlier 4 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 order and declared 6.94 acres as surplus, however, the three plots bearing Nos. 280, 33-M and 405 remained untouched and they remained declared surplus.

15. It is in the aforesaid factual background that the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 namely Ramzan and Salamat purchased Plot Nos. 208 from Lal Bageshwari Singh vide sale deed dated 11.07.1977. The other petitioners also purchased the land of Plot No. 405M vide sale deed dated

27.11.1980 and their names were mutated on 16.07.1981 and again petitioner nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 purchased land of Plot Nos. 33-A from Lal Bageshwari Singh vide sale deed dated 17.1.1981.

16. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that these subsequent purchasers also filed their objections under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 on the premise that the original tenure-holder had ample land and the land purchased by the petitioners i.e. Ramzan and others were bona fide purchasers and their land be exempted, however, the objections filed by the subsequent purchasers did not find favour and by means of order dated 20.02.1986, the Prescribed Authority rejected the objections. The appeal was also dismissed on 18.03.1987 and thereafter a review was preferred and the same was dismissed on 29.03.1988 and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the three orders are under challenge in the instant petitions.

17. At this stage, it is relevant to note that writ petition no. 3667 of 1988 was filed by the subsequent purchasers. However, the original tenure- holder Shitla Bux Singh did not file the petition assailing the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority till the year 1990. The writ petition, filed by Shitla Bux Singh, after the writ had already been filed by the subsequent purchasers, merely indicates a formal contest sought to be raised by Shitla Bux Singh as he did not lead any evidence before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority.

18. In light of the aforesaid factual backdrop, Shitla Bux Singh being the original tenure-holder is represented by Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel who is pressing Writ Petition No. 8673 of 1990. The subsequent 5 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 purchasers are represented by Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel who is pressing Writ-C No. 3667 of 1988.

19. The writ petition has primarily been argued by Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the subsequent purchasers whereas Sri Anoop, learned counsel for original tenure holder made formal submissions assailing the impugned orders. On behalf of the State, Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel advanced his submissions supporting the impugned order.

20. The crux of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disputed property was recorded in the name of Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh. Sri Shitla Bux Singh and Rajeshwari Kunwar executed a registered gift deed in favour of Sri Vishun Pratap Singh, Manjosh Pratap Singh, Raman Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Nath Singh Bageshwari Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Singh. Since the name of these 6 peoples were recorded, hence, the subsequent purchasers purchased the property from them vide three separate deeds executed on

11.07.1977, 27.11.1980 and 17.11.1980.

21. It is also stated that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers and their sale deeds were valid and they were entitled to be considered in terms of Section 12-A of the Act of 1960. It is urged that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Prescribed Authority nor by the Appellate Authority and though it was pointed out in the review yet the same was dismissed.

22. It is urged that even the Authorities did not consider the impact of Section 5(6) of the Act of 1960 and in the given circumstances, the orders impugned are bad and deserves to be set aside.

23. As noticed above, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel made formal submissions and despite queries being put by the Court he could not answer the same, as discussed hereinafter.

24. The learned Standing Counsel for the State refuted the aforesaid submissions and urged that the sale deeds were void and therefore no 6 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 right could accrue to the subsequent purchasers. The original tenure- holder Shitla Bux Singh did not furnish any evidence and in the given circumstances, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot be faulted and as such both the writ petition deserve to be dismissed.

25. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

26. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners of both the petitions regarding the genealogy as to from whom the disputed property emanated and how it landed in the hands of the present petitioners.

27. Though, this query should have been answered by Shitla Bux Singh but as noticed above, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Shitla Bux Singh was at loss of words to answer the query.

28. In this view, Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel had made submissions that the property was recorded in the name of Shitla Bux Singh and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar widow of Haribansh Singh.

29. It was stated that Shitla Bux Singh and Haribansh Singh were real brothers and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar was the widow of Haribansh Singh and after the death of Haribansh Singh, Smt, Rajeshwari Kunwar became the recorded tenure-holder in so far as the stake of Both Shitla Bux Singh and Haribansh Singh is concerned.

30. Sri Chaudhary has also drawn the attention of the Court to a brief submission which was filed under the signatures of Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner representing Sri Shitla Bux Singh dated 24th April, 2025 which was on record and submitted that after the death of Haribansh Singh, his widow Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh came to be recorded as tenure-holders. Sri Shitla Bux Singh and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar executed a gift deed in favour of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh and in turn they sold the property to 7 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 the present petitioners by three separate sale deeds as noticed above on

11.07.1977, 27.11.1980 and 17.01.1981.

31. The Court had again put a query, that the sale deeds executed by the sons of Shitla Bux Singh in favour of the subsequent purchasers on 3 separate dates during their minority and in the said sale deeds it has been shown, to have been shown, to have executed through the guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar, then how could Smt. Rajeshwari execute the sale deeds as the guardian of the minor children (who were the sons of Shitla Bux Singh) while Shitla Bux Singh was still alive. Moreover, Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar was the Aunt of the minor children and in presence of Shitla Bux Singh, how could Rajeshwari Kunwar get any right to sell the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer or give an explanation to the aforesaid query.

32.This assumes significance for the reason that admittedly, if Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh were recorded tenure-holders then under what circumstances they had executed a gift deed on

04.02.1970 in favour of the minor children of Shitla Bux Singh.

33. No plausible explanation could be given regarding the execution of the gift deed in favour of the minor children and even if it was so and the names of the minor children were recorded and they executed the sale deeds in favour of the subsequent purchasers on 11.07.1977, 27.11.1980 and 17.01.1981 but through their guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar could only be the guardian if appointed by a Competent Court and thereto only after taking the permission of the Competent Court to sell the property of the minor. No order appointing Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar as guardian of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh nor any order permitting Smt. Rajeshwari to sell the property of minor was placed before any court nor before this Court till date.

34. These dates are significant for the reason that notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 had already been issued to Shitla Bux Singh on

15.11.1975 to which Shitla Bux Singh had filed his objections on 8 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

01.12.1975.This apparently, would indicate that proceedings had already been initiated under the Act of 1960.

35. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice Section 5 of the Act of 1960 which reads as under:- "5. 1[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, throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. [ Explanation I — In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account. Explanation II — 3[If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possessions and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register after the said date] either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of deed of transfer or license or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person. ] (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to land held by the following classes of persons, namely : (a) the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority or a Government Company or a Corporation ; (b) a University ; 4[ (c) an intermediate or degree college imparting education in agriculture or a post graduate college ; ] (d) a banking company or a co-operative bank or a co-operative land development bank ; (e) the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952. (3) 1[subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), (5), (6) and (7)] the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be — (a) in the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), plus two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates 9 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 to two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land ; (b) in the case of tenure-holder having a family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult son aggregated to two hectares, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land. Explanation — The expression ‘adult son’ in clauses (a) and (b) includes an adult son who is dead and has left surviving behind him minor sons or minor daughters (other than married daughters) who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold land less than two hectares of irrigated land ; (c) 2[ * * * * * ] (d) 2[ * * * * * ] (e) in the case of any other tenure-holder, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. Explanation — Any transfer or partition of land which is liable to be ignored under sub-section (6) and (7) shall be ignored also — (p) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning of 3[clause (a) or clause (b)] ; (q) for purposes of service of notice under Section 9. (4) Where any holding is held by a firm or co-operative society or other society or association of persons (Whether incorporated or not, but not including a public company), its members (whether called partners, share-holders or by any other name) shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to hold that holding in proportion to their respective shares in that firm, co-operative society or other society or association of persons. [ Provided that where a person immediately before his admission to the firm, co-operative society, or other society or association of persons, held no land or an area of land less than the area proportionate to his aforesaid share then he shall be deemed to hold no share, or as the case may be, only the lesser area in that holding, and the entire or the remaining area of the holding, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be held by the remaining members in proportion to their respective share in the firm, co-operative society, or to other society or association of persons. ] 10 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 (5) In respect of any holding held by any private trust — (a) where the shares of its beneficiaries in the income from such trust are known of determinable, the beneficiaries shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to have the shares in that holding in the same proportions as their respective shares in the income from such trust ; (b) in any other case, it shall be governed by 2[clause (e)] of sub- section (3). (6) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth 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 ; (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 the 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 of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971’, includes — 4[(a) a declaration of a person as a co-tenure-holder made after the twenty-fourth 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 life 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. (7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any partition of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971 which but for the partition 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) 2[ * * * * ] (b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding pending on the said date ; Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding proviso, the prescribed authority, if it is of opinion that by collusion between the tenure-holder and any other party to the partition, 11 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 such other party has been given a share which he was no entitled to, or a larger share than he was entitled to, may ignore such partition. [Explanation I — If a suit is instituted after the said date for declaration that a partition of land has taken place on or before the said date, then such declaration shall be ignored and not be taken into account, and it shall be deemed that no partition has taken place on or before the said date. ] Explanation II — The burden of proving that a case falls within the first proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. ] 4[(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 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]."

36. From the perusal of Section 5 Sub Section 8, it would indicate that any sale deed executed during the pendency of the ceiling proceedings would be void. Admittedly, the sale deeds executed in favour of the purchasers by the minor sons of Sri Shitla Bux Singh was while the said ceiling proceedings were pending and by virtue of the aforesaid Section 5 Sub Section 8, the sale deeds in law have to be treated as void, thus, no right could accrue on the basis of the said sale deeds.

37. A submission was made by Sri Chaudhary that the petitioners should be granted the benefit of Section 12-A as well as Section 5 Sub Section 6, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid Section, it would indicate that Section 5(6) and Section 5(8) operate in a different spheres altogether.

38. It is not a case where the rights of the subsequent purchasers had already been created prior to the cut-off date as provided in the Act of 12 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

1960. If any deed or document is excluded post the aforesaid cut-off date, it on its own may not render the document void but the fact remains that it has to be explained that the said document was executed bonafidely, however, there is no material on record to indicate that any such exercise was done.

39. It could not be disputed that the sale deeds upon which the petitioners are claiming were executed while the ceiling proceedings were in vogue against Shitla Bux Singh. The said sale deeds being hit by Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act of 1960 cannot confer any benefit on the writ-petitioners.

40. As already noticed above, no explanation could be furnished as to how and why the gift deed was executed by Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar Singh and Shitla Bux Singh in favour of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh. Even for the sake of argument, if the said gift deed is assumed to be valid yet there can be no justification nor it could be explained as to how Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar held out to be the guardian of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh, as in law the guardian could have been either the father, i.e. Shitla Bux Singh who was alive, the mother of those children, whose name has not been indicated nor explained as to whether she was alive or not nor any order of any Competent Court is on record, appointing Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar as the guardian.

41. The relationship between the minor children and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar was that of aunt and nephew and appointment of the aunt as guardian could only be through a valid order passed by the court of law in terms of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as the case may be.

42. In absence of any such material on record, the sale deed executed apparently by Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar as the guardian of the minor children does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that it was also hit by virtue of Section 5 Sub Section 8. 13 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

43. The reliance has been placed by Sri Chaudhary on the decisions of this Court in Har Bilash Misra v. Civil Judge, Etawah and others; 1983 All LJ 71, and in Soorya Bali v. State of U.P. and others; 1993 All LJ 44, however, from the perusal of the said judgments, it would indicate that they have no applicability as in the instant case as the sale deeds of the petitioners was void in terms of Section 5(8) of the Act of 1960 and also for the reasons as noticed above, hence, the said judgments do not come to the aid of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

44. Since Sri Shitla Bux Singh who had filed the other petition also could not give any cogent explanation and as per the Scheme of the Act of 1960, it would indicate that perhaps the multiple documents which were created were only to avoid the ceiling limits and especially noticing that Shitla Bux Singh after the issuance of notice dated 15.11.1976 under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 to him, did not lead any cogent evidence or contested the proceedings rather in a convenient manner transferred the property, hence, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority cannot be termed to be perverse.

45. In the aforesaid decisions of Hari Bilas Mishra (supra) and Soorya Bali (supra), the provision of Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act of 1960 has been considered and it has been categorically held that a deed executed which is hit by Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act of 1960 is void and no rights can accrue on the strength of such deeds, hence, the aforesaid decisions do not come to the aid of the writ petitioners.

46. The reliance placed on Section 12-A also does not come to the aid of the petitioners, inasmuch as, Section 12-A is built on the premise that the transfer made is valid. In the instant case, since the transfer in itself is void in term of Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act, hence, Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 has no applicability.

47. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority which is based on the principles enunciated in Section 5(8) of the Act of 1960 cannot be faulted. The 14 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 facts and query as noted above could not be disputed nor explained and it could not be shown how the impugned orders are erroneous or against the material available on record. Thus, this Court finds that there is no merit in the petitions and they are liable to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.02.1986 and the order dated Appellate Authority dated 18.03.1987 are liable to be affirmed.

48. The writ petitions bearing Writ-C No.3003667 of 1988 and Writ-C No. 3008673 of 1990 are devoid of merits and the impugned orders dated 20.02.1986, 18.03.1987 and 29.03.1988 are affirmed, as a consequence, the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. December 10, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh, J. ) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

5. The connected Writ Petition No. 8673 of 1990 was filed by Sri Shitla Baksh (the original writ-petitioner who were the original tenure-holder) who has assailed the same orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.02.1986 whereby the objections filed by Sri Shitla Baksh Singh were rejected as well as the order dated 15.07.1979 and 27.08.1981.

6. Since the issues involved in the instant two petitions are common and one writ petition has been filed by the original tenure holder namely the one filed by Shitla Baksh Singh whereas the other petition has been filed by the subsequent purchaser namely the one filed by Ramzan & others, hence, both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

7. It was the case of Ramzan that he had purchased the property in question from Sri Lal Bageshwari Singh, Vishun Pratap Singh, Manjosh Pratap Singh, Raman Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Nath Singh and Lalit Kumar Singh, who were the minor sons of Shitla Bux Singh, through their guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar widow of Sri Harivansh Singh vide sale deed dated 11.07.1977 for a valuable sale consideration. On the other hand, it was alleged by Ramzan that without putting him to notice the order dated 27.08.1981 by which, surplus land was declared, was passed.

8. It was further stated that that the disputed plots in question are; Plot No. 208 situate in Village Jagdishpur, Plot No. 33-A and Plot No. 405-M situate in Village Beelgaon which fell in Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, Districh Bahraich. 3 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

9. It was the case set up, that Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar wife of Late Haribansh Singh was the recorded tenure-holder along with Sri Shitla Bux Singh. The consolidation operations took place in the village in question some time in the year 1960 and thereafter Plot No. 208 of village Jagdishpur was recorded in the name of Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar wife of Late Haribansh Singh.

10. Similarly, plot No. 33-A of Village Beelgaon was recorded in her name so also plot no. 405 which was recorded in the names of both Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh.

11. It was the case of the petitioners that, a registered gift deed was executed by Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux in favour of Sri Vishun Pratap Singh, Manjosh Pratap Singh, Raman Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Nath Singh Bageshwari Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Singh. The gift related to Plot Nos. 280 of Village Bhisampur whereas plot nos. 33-A and Plot No. 405 were of Village Beelgaon. It was also stated that the names of the donees as mentioned above were duly mutated. Sri Lal Bageshwari Singh and Raman Pratap Singh have died and their rights vested with their father Shitla Prasad Singh.

12. On 15.11.1976 notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to Sri Shitla Bux Singh. Sri Shitla Bux Singh filed his objections on 01.12.1975, however, the Prescribed Authority by means of its order dated 27.02.1976 declared a surplus land of 11.97 acres which also included plot no. 405.

13. An appeal was preferred by Shitla Bux Singh bearing Appeal No. 280 of 1976 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated

06.10.1976 and the matter was remanded for decision afresh. After remand, the Prescribed Authority once again declared 31.95 acres of land as surplus which included Plot Nos. 405, 33-M and 208.

14. Once again, objections were filed by Shitla Bux Singh stating that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 15.01.1979 was ex- parte. Upon an application, the Prescribed Authority modified its earlier 4 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 order and declared 6.94 acres as surplus, however, the three plots bearing Nos. 280, 33-M and 405 remained untouched and they remained declared surplus.

15. It is in the aforesaid factual background that the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 namely Ramzan and Salamat purchased Plot Nos. 208 from Lal Bageshwari Singh vide sale deed dated 11.07.1977. The other petitioners also purchased the land of Plot No. 405M vide sale deed dated

27.11.1980 and their names were mutated on 16.07.1981 and again petitioner nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 purchased land of Plot Nos. 33-A from Lal Bageshwari Singh vide sale deed dated 17.1.1981.

16. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that these subsequent purchasers also filed their objections under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 on the premise that the original tenure-holder had ample land and the land purchased by the petitioners i.e. Ramzan and others were bona fide purchasers and their land be exempted, however, the objections filed by the subsequent purchasers did not find favour and by means of order dated 20.02.1986, the Prescribed Authority rejected the objections. The appeal was also dismissed on 18.03.1987 and thereafter a review was preferred and the same was dismissed on 29.03.1988 and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the three orders are under challenge in the instant petitions.

17. At this stage, it is relevant to note that writ petition no. 3667 of 1988 was filed by the subsequent purchasers. However, the original tenure- holder Shitla Bux Singh did not file the petition assailing the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority till the year 1990. The writ petition, filed by Shitla Bux Singh, after the writ had already been filed by the subsequent purchasers, merely indicates a formal contest sought to be raised by Shitla Bux Singh as he did not lead any evidence before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority.

18. In light of the aforesaid factual backdrop, Shitla Bux Singh being the original tenure-holder is represented by Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel who is pressing Writ Petition No. 8673 of 1990. The subsequent 5 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 purchasers are represented by Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel who is pressing Writ-C No. 3667 of 1988.

19. The writ petition has primarily been argued by Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the subsequent purchasers whereas Sri Anoop, learned counsel for original tenure holder made formal submissions assailing the impugned orders. On behalf of the State, Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel advanced his submissions supporting the impugned order.

20. The crux of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disputed property was recorded in the name of Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh. Sri Shitla Bux Singh and Rajeshwari Kunwar executed a registered gift deed in favour of Sri Vishun Pratap Singh, Manjosh Pratap Singh, Raman Pratap Singh, Dharmendra Nath Singh Bageshwari Prasad Singh and Lalit Kumar Singh. Since the name of these 6 peoples were recorded, hence, the subsequent purchasers purchased the property from them vide three separate deeds executed on

11.07.1977, 27.11.1980 and 17.11.1980.

21. It is also stated that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers and their sale deeds were valid and they were entitled to be considered in terms of Section 12-A of the Act of 1960. It is urged that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Prescribed Authority nor by the Appellate Authority and though it was pointed out in the review yet the same was dismissed.

22. It is urged that even the Authorities did not consider the impact of Section 5(6) of the Act of 1960 and in the given circumstances, the orders impugned are bad and deserves to be set aside.

23. As noticed above, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel made formal submissions and despite queries being put by the Court he could not answer the same, as discussed hereinafter.

24. The learned Standing Counsel for the State refuted the aforesaid submissions and urged that the sale deeds were void and therefore no 6 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 right could accrue to the subsequent purchasers. The original tenure- holder Shitla Bux Singh did not furnish any evidence and in the given circumstances, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot be faulted and as such both the writ petition deserve to be dismissed.

25. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

26. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners of both the petitions regarding the genealogy as to from whom the disputed property emanated and how it landed in the hands of the present petitioners.

27. Though, this query should have been answered by Shitla Bux Singh but as noticed above, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Shitla Bux Singh was at loss of words to answer the query.

28. In this view, Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel had made submissions that the property was recorded in the name of Shitla Bux Singh and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar widow of Haribansh Singh.

29. It was stated that Shitla Bux Singh and Haribansh Singh were real brothers and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar was the widow of Haribansh Singh and after the death of Haribansh Singh, Smt, Rajeshwari Kunwar became the recorded tenure-holder in so far as the stake of Both Shitla Bux Singh and Haribansh Singh is concerned.

30. Sri Chaudhary has also drawn the attention of the Court to a brief submission which was filed under the signatures of Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner representing Sri Shitla Bux Singh dated 24th April, 2025 which was on record and submitted that after the death of Haribansh Singh, his widow Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh came to be recorded as tenure-holders. Sri Shitla Bux Singh and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar executed a gift deed in favour of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh and in turn they sold the property to 7 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 the present petitioners by three separate sale deeds as noticed above on

11.07.1977, 27.11.1980 and 17.01.1981.

31. The Court had again put a query, that the sale deeds executed by the sons of Shitla Bux Singh in favour of the subsequent purchasers on 3 separate dates during their minority and in the said sale deeds it has been shown, to have been shown, to have executed through the guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar, then how could Smt. Rajeshwari execute the sale deeds as the guardian of the minor children (who were the sons of Shitla Bux Singh) while Shitla Bux Singh was still alive. Moreover, Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar was the Aunt of the minor children and in presence of Shitla Bux Singh, how could Rajeshwari Kunwar get any right to sell the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer or give an explanation to the aforesaid query.

32.This assumes significance for the reason that admittedly, if Rajeshwari Kunwar and Shitla Bux Singh were recorded tenure-holders then under what circumstances they had executed a gift deed on

04.02.1970 in favour of the minor children of Shitla Bux Singh.

33. No plausible explanation could be given regarding the execution of the gift deed in favour of the minor children and even if it was so and the names of the minor children were recorded and they executed the sale deeds in favour of the subsequent purchasers on 11.07.1977, 27.11.1980 and 17.01.1981 but through their guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar could only be the guardian if appointed by a Competent Court and thereto only after taking the permission of the Competent Court to sell the property of the minor. No order appointing Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar as guardian of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh nor any order permitting Smt. Rajeshwari to sell the property of minor was placed before any court nor before this Court till date.

34. These dates are significant for the reason that notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 had already been issued to Shitla Bux Singh on

15.11.1975 to which Shitla Bux Singh had filed his objections on 8 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

01.12.1975.This apparently, would indicate that proceedings had already been initiated under the Act of 1960.

35. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice Section 5 of the Act of 1960 which reads as under:- "5. 1[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, throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. [ Explanation I — In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account. Explanation II — 3[If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possessions and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register after the said date] either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of deed of transfer or license or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person. ] (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to land held by the following classes of persons, namely : (a) the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority or a Government Company or a Corporation ; (b) a University ; 4[ (c) an intermediate or degree college imparting education in agriculture or a post graduate college ; ] (d) a banking company or a co-operative bank or a co-operative land development bank ; (e) the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952. (3) 1[subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), (5), (6) and (7)] the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be — (a) in the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), plus two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates 9 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 to two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land ; (b) in the case of tenure-holder having a family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult son aggregated to two hectares, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land. Explanation — The expression ‘adult son’ in clauses (a) and (b) includes an adult son who is dead and has left surviving behind him minor sons or minor daughters (other than married daughters) who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold land less than two hectares of irrigated land ; (c) 2[ * * * * * ] (d) 2[ * * * * * ] (e) in the case of any other tenure-holder, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. Explanation — Any transfer or partition of land which is liable to be ignored under sub-section (6) and (7) shall be ignored also — (p) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning of 3[clause (a) or clause (b)] ; (q) for purposes of service of notice under Section 9. (4) Where any holding is held by a firm or co-operative society or other society or association of persons (Whether incorporated or not, but not including a public company), its members (whether called partners, share-holders or by any other name) shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to hold that holding in proportion to their respective shares in that firm, co-operative society or other society or association of persons. [ Provided that where a person immediately before his admission to the firm, co-operative society, or other society or association of persons, held no land or an area of land less than the area proportionate to his aforesaid share then he shall be deemed to hold no share, or as the case may be, only the lesser area in that holding, and the entire or the remaining area of the holding, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be held by the remaining members in proportion to their respective share in the firm, co-operative society, or to other society or association of persons. ] 10 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 (5) In respect of any holding held by any private trust — (a) where the shares of its beneficiaries in the income from such trust are known of determinable, the beneficiaries shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to have the shares in that holding in the same proportions as their respective shares in the income from such trust ; (b) in any other case, it shall be governed by 2[clause (e)] of sub- section (3). (6) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth 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 ; (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 the 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 of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971’, includes — 4[(a) a declaration of a person as a co-tenure-holder made after the twenty-fourth 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 life 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. (7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any partition of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971 which but for the partition 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) 2[ * * * * ] (b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding pending on the said date ; Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding proviso, the prescribed authority, if it is of opinion that by collusion between the tenure-holder and any other party to the partition, 11 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 such other party has been given a share which he was no entitled to, or a larger share than he was entitled to, may ignore such partition. [Explanation I — If a suit is instituted after the said date for declaration that a partition of land has taken place on or before the said date, then such declaration shall be ignored and not be taken into account, and it shall be deemed that no partition has taken place on or before the said date. ] Explanation II — The burden of proving that a case falls within the first proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. ] 4[(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 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]."

36. From the perusal of Section 5 Sub Section 8, it would indicate that any sale deed executed during the pendency of the ceiling proceedings would be void. Admittedly, the sale deeds executed in favour of the purchasers by the minor sons of Sri Shitla Bux Singh was while the said ceiling proceedings were pending and by virtue of the aforesaid Section 5 Sub Section 8, the sale deeds in law have to be treated as void, thus, no right could accrue on the basis of the said sale deeds.

37. A submission was made by Sri Chaudhary that the petitioners should be granted the benefit of Section 12-A as well as Section 5 Sub Section 6, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid Section, it would indicate that Section 5(6) and Section 5(8) operate in a different spheres altogether.

38. It is not a case where the rights of the subsequent purchasers had already been created prior to the cut-off date as provided in the Act of 12 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

1960. If any deed or document is excluded post the aforesaid cut-off date, it on its own may not render the document void but the fact remains that it has to be explained that the said document was executed bonafidely, however, there is no material on record to indicate that any such exercise was done.

39. It could not be disputed that the sale deeds upon which the petitioners are claiming were executed while the ceiling proceedings were in vogue against Shitla Bux Singh. The said sale deeds being hit by Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act of 1960 cannot confer any benefit on the writ-petitioners.

40. As already noticed above, no explanation could be furnished as to how and why the gift deed was executed by Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar Singh and Shitla Bux Singh in favour of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh. Even for the sake of argument, if the said gift deed is assumed to be valid yet there can be no justification nor it could be explained as to how Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar held out to be the guardian of minor children of Shitla Bux Singh, as in law the guardian could have been either the father, i.e. Shitla Bux Singh who was alive, the mother of those children, whose name has not been indicated nor explained as to whether she was alive or not nor any order of any Competent Court is on record, appointing Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar as the guardian.

41. The relationship between the minor children and Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar was that of aunt and nephew and appointment of the aunt as guardian could only be through a valid order passed by the court of law in terms of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as the case may be.

42. In absence of any such material on record, the sale deed executed apparently by Smt. Rajeshwari Kunwar as the guardian of the minor children does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that it was also hit by virtue of Section 5 Sub Section 8. 13 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990

43. The reliance has been placed by Sri Chaudhary on the decisions of this Court in Har Bilash Misra v. Civil Judge, Etawah and others; 1983 All LJ 71, and in Soorya Bali v. State of U.P. and others; 1993 All LJ 44, however, from the perusal of the said judgments, it would indicate that they have no applicability as in the instant case as the sale deeds of the petitioners was void in terms of Section 5(8) of the Act of 1960 and also for the reasons as noticed above, hence, the said judgments do not come to the aid of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

44. Since Sri Shitla Bux Singh who had filed the other petition also could not give any cogent explanation and as per the Scheme of the Act of 1960, it would indicate that perhaps the multiple documents which were created were only to avoid the ceiling limits and especially noticing that Shitla Bux Singh after the issuance of notice dated 15.11.1976 under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 to him, did not lead any cogent evidence or contested the proceedings rather in a convenient manner transferred the property, hence, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority cannot be termed to be perverse.

45. In the aforesaid decisions of Hari Bilas Mishra (supra) and Soorya Bali (supra), the provision of Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act of 1960 has been considered and it has been categorically held that a deed executed which is hit by Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act of 1960 is void and no rights can accrue on the strength of such deeds, hence, the aforesaid decisions do not come to the aid of the writ petitioners.

46. The reliance placed on Section 12-A also does not come to the aid of the petitioners, inasmuch as, Section 12-A is built on the premise that the transfer made is valid. In the instant case, since the transfer in itself is void in term of Section 5 Sub Section 8 of the Act, hence, Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 has no applicability.

47. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority which is based on the principles enunciated in Section 5(8) of the Act of 1960 cannot be faulted. The 14 WRIT - C No. - 3003667 of 1988 with WRIT - C No. - 3008673 of 1990 facts and query as noted above could not be disputed nor explained and it could not be shown how the impugned orders are erroneous or against the material available on record. Thus, this Court finds that there is no merit in the petitions and they are liable to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.02.1986 and the order dated Appellate Authority dated 18.03.1987 are liable to be affirmed.

48. The writ petitions bearing Writ-C No.3003667 of 1988 and Writ-C No. 3008673 of 1990 are devoid of merits and the impugned orders dated 20.02.1986, 18.03.1987 and 29.03.1988 are affirmed, as a consequence, the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. December 10, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh, J. ) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench