High Court · 2025

passed by the Prescribed Authority which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court by means of judgment dated 30.08.1994, as a consequence, land measuring 10.472 acres of irrigated land of Thakur Prasad Singh was declared as surplus.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Imposition of Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ceiling Act') was issued to Thakur Prasad Singh. In response to the said notice, Sri Thakur Prasad Singh filed his objections, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4.

5. It was also stated that a settlement had taken place between the heirs of Sri Musahib Singh namely Vikram Singh and Thakur Prasad Singh. A suit for partition had been filed and in pursuance of a decree, the share of Thakur Prasad Singh was determined as 1/16th share and - 2 - if the said area of land is seen in context with Section 5 of the Act of 1960, the land actually held by Thakur Prasad Singh would be less than the ceiling limit. The children of Thakur Prasad Singh (who are now the present petitioners) also had filed their objections.

7. Before the Prescribed Authority, two issues were framed. Later five other additional issues were framed and after leading of evidence, the Prescribed Authority did not find favour with the contents of the petitioners and even the decree passed in a suit for which was based on a compromise was not accepted.

8. The Prescribed Authority also did not find favour with the contention that the land of the original petitioner-namely Thakur Prasad Singh and thereafter his children who are the present petitioners was less than the ceiling limits, accordingly, the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment dated 30.12.1988 found that Sri Thakur Prasad Singh holding land was in excess of 10.473 acres of irrigated land.

9. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner, Thakur Prasad Singh and his sons who are now the present petitioner nos. 1 to 7 filed an appeal. A copy of the memo of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure No. 7 which confirms the above status of the parties i.e. to say that Thakur Prasad and his 7 sons were co- appellants.

10. Before the Appellate Authority, it was specifically urged that the documents which had been filed clearly indicated that the land which belonged to the sons of Thakur Prasad Singh had to be excluded and in case if the same was excluded that the land in question was below the ceiling limits, accordingly, the re-determination of the land in terms of the Section 5 of the Act of 1960 was not properly done and by clubbing the land incorrectly, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has become susceptible to judicial intervention and during - 3 - the pendency of the appeal, Sri Thakur Prasad Singh expired and his sons who were the co-appellants took the matter forward and the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 03.08.1993 dismissed the appeal and the Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority and did not find favour with the decree passed in a suit for partition based on a compromise.

11. The thrust of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was the clear case that Musahib Singh had two sons namely Vikram Singh and Thakur Prasad Singh. In terms of a oral family settlement, the parties had already divided the holdings and Thakur Prasad Singh got 1/16th share, subsequently, a suit was filed which was decreed on 22.09.1972 and Thakur Prasad Singh’s 1/16th share was confirmed.

12. It is urged that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1960 were not scrupulously followed and moreover there was no material on record for the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority to have ignored the partition decree.

13. Moreover, even if the said partition decree was to be ignored but the fact remains that the land of the sons of the petitioners who got a right in the partition decree was separate and that could not have been clubbed with the land of Thakur Prasad Singh. This, if considered appropriately, would indicate that the land held by Sri Thakur Prasad Singh after accounting for the correct determination in terms of Section 5 of the Act would bring the land of the petitioner within the ceiling limit, hence, the two decisions are bad.

14. Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the partition decree is dated 22.09.1972 which is after the prescribed date i.e. 24th January, 1972.

15. It is thus urged that the Trial Court cannot be faulted for ignoring - 4 - the same, moreover, it was upon to the petitioners to have explained as to how the land was within the ceiling limits.

18. Since no appropriate evidence or material was brought on record, accordingly, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is bad and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

27. At the outset, what is relevant to notice is the import of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act which reads as under:- “5. Imposition of ceiling— (1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate, 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 — [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 ; (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) [subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), (5), (6) and (7)] the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be — - 5 - (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 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) [ * * * * * ] (d) [ * * * * * ] (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 — (f) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning of [clause (a) or clause (b)] ; (g) 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 - 6 - proportion to their respective share in the firm, co-operative society, or to other society or association of persons. ] (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 [clause (e)] of subsection (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 ; Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to --- (a) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government) referred to in sub-section (2) ; (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami transaction or for 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 — [(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) [ * * * * ] (b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding pending on the said date ; - 7 - 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, 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. ] [(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].”

18. If the aforesaid provision is seen, it would reveal that it was of prime importance for both the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority to have seen the impact of how the land which was in the names of the other sons of Thakur Prasad would impact the land holding of Thakur Prasad Singh.

19. Once, there was a clear contention regarding a family settlement having taken place in 1955 then the effect of the decree dated

22.02.1972 would also have to be seen. Merely because the date of the judgment was 22.09.1972 i.e. after the cut-off date of 24.01.1972 it automatically does not result in the decree being hit in terms of the provisions contained in the Act of 1960.

20. It is also relevant to notice that even though the notice was issued to Sri Thakur Prasad Singh yet apart from Sri Thakur Prasad Singh, his children had also filed their separate objections. There is no - 8 - consideration in this regard.

21. The record also indicates that apart from Thakur Prasad Singh, his children had also filed the memo of appeal and they too had raised their plea. Once, the appeal was filed by aggrieved persons i.e. Thakur Prasad Singh and his sons, it was necessary for the Appellate Authority to have considered the same both in context with Thakur Prasad Singh and that of his sons, separately.

22. It is not disputed that Thakur Prasad Singh died during the pendency of the appeal, consequently, its impact also should have been considered, however, the same has not been done.

23. Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the opinion that in order to correctly determine the actual land to be declared surplus, the aforesaid plea regarding the case of the sons of Thakur Prasad Singh ought to have been taken note, of which unfortunately has not been done.

24. The determination of the land in light of the plea raised by the sons of Sri Thakur Prasad Singh requires entering into the factual matrix. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. The order dated 30.08.1994 passed by the Appellate Court is accordingly set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Appellate Court where the parties shall appear on 30th May, 2025. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties concerned and noticing their respective contentions shall re-determine the land in accordance with law as provided in Section 5 of the Act of 1960 by a reasoned and speaking order.

25. Since the matter has been engaging the attention of the Courts since several decades, it is expected that the parties shall cooperate before the Appellate Authority and in case if any parties chooses to misuse the liberty, the Appellate Authority will be within its rights to pass appropriate orders including imposing progressive costs.

26. With the aforesaid, the present petition is partly allowed in the - 9 - aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Asheesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

passed by the Prescribed Authority which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court by means of judgment dated 30.08.1994, as a consequence, land measuring 10.472 acres of irrigated land of Thakur Prasad Singh was declared as surplus.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Imposition of Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ceiling Act') was issued to Thakur Prasad Singh. In response to the said notice, Sri Thakur Prasad Singh filed his objections, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4.

5. It was also stated that a settlement had taken place between the heirs of Sri Musahib Singh namely Vikram Singh and Thakur Prasad Singh. A suit for partition had been filed and in pursuance of a decree, the share of Thakur Prasad Singh was determined as 1/16th share and - 2 - if the said area of land is seen in context with Section 5 of the Act of 1960, the land actually held by Thakur Prasad Singh would be less than the ceiling limit. The children of Thakur Prasad Singh (who are now the present petitioners) also had filed their objections.

7. Before the Prescribed Authority, two issues were framed. Later five other additional issues were framed and after leading of evidence, the Prescribed Authority did not find favour with the contents of the petitioners and even the decree passed in a suit for which was based on a compromise was not accepted.

8. The Prescribed Authority also did not find favour with the contention that the land of the original petitioner-namely Thakur Prasad Singh and thereafter his children who are the present petitioners was less than the ceiling limits, accordingly, the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment dated 30.12.1988 found that Sri Thakur Prasad Singh holding land was in excess of 10.473 acres of irrigated land.

9. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner, Thakur Prasad Singh and his sons who are now the present petitioner nos. 1 to 7 filed an appeal. A copy of the memo of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure No. 7 which confirms the above status of the parties i.e. to say that Thakur Prasad and his 7 sons were co- appellants.

10. Before the Appellate Authority, it was specifically urged that the documents which had been filed clearly indicated that the land which belonged to the sons of Thakur Prasad Singh had to be excluded and in case if the same was excluded that the land in question was below the ceiling limits, accordingly, the re-determination of the land in terms of the Section 5 of the Act of 1960 was not properly done and by clubbing the land incorrectly, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has become susceptible to judicial intervention and during - 3 - the pendency of the appeal, Sri Thakur Prasad Singh expired and his sons who were the co-appellants took the matter forward and the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 03.08.1993 dismissed the appeal and the Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority and did not find favour with the decree passed in a suit for partition based on a compromise.

11. The thrust of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was the clear case that Musahib Singh had two sons namely Vikram Singh and Thakur Prasad Singh. In terms of a oral family settlement, the parties had already divided the holdings and Thakur Prasad Singh got 1/16th share, subsequently, a suit was filed which was decreed on 22.09.1972 and Thakur Prasad Singh’s 1/16th share was confirmed.

12. It is urged that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1960 were not scrupulously followed and moreover there was no material on record for the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority to have ignored the partition decree.

13. Moreover, even if the said partition decree was to be ignored but the fact remains that the land of the sons of the petitioners who got a right in the partition decree was separate and that could not have been clubbed with the land of Thakur Prasad Singh. This, if considered appropriately, would indicate that the land held by Sri Thakur Prasad Singh after accounting for the correct determination in terms of Section 5 of the Act would bring the land of the petitioner within the ceiling limit, hence, the two decisions are bad.

14. Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the partition decree is dated 22.09.1972 which is after the prescribed date i.e. 24th January, 1972.

15. It is thus urged that the Trial Court cannot be faulted for ignoring - 4 - the same, moreover, it was upon to the petitioners to have explained as to how the land was within the ceiling limits.

18. Since no appropriate evidence or material was brought on record, accordingly, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is bad and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

27. At the outset, what is relevant to notice is the import of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act which reads as under:- “5. Imposition of ceiling— (1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate, 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 — [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 ; (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) [subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), (5), (6) and (7)] the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be — - 5 - (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 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) [ * * * * * ] (d) [ * * * * * ] (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 — (f) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning of [clause (a) or clause (b)] ; (g) 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 - 6 - proportion to their respective share in the firm, co-operative society, or to other society or association of persons. ] (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 [clause (e)] of subsection (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 ; Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to --- (a) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government) referred to in sub-section (2) ; (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami transaction or for 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 — [(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) [ * * * * ] (b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding pending on the said date ; - 7 - 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, 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. ] [(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].”

18. If the aforesaid provision is seen, it would reveal that it was of prime importance for both the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority to have seen the impact of how the land which was in the names of the other sons of Thakur Prasad would impact the land holding of Thakur Prasad Singh.

19. Once, there was a clear contention regarding a family settlement having taken place in 1955 then the effect of the decree dated

22.02.1972 would also have to be seen. Merely because the date of the judgment was 22.09.1972 i.e. after the cut-off date of 24.01.1972 it automatically does not result in the decree being hit in terms of the provisions contained in the Act of 1960.

20. It is also relevant to notice that even though the notice was issued to Sri Thakur Prasad Singh yet apart from Sri Thakur Prasad Singh, his children had also filed their separate objections. There is no - 8 - consideration in this regard.

21. The record also indicates that apart from Thakur Prasad Singh, his children had also filed the memo of appeal and they too had raised their plea. Once, the appeal was filed by aggrieved persons i.e. Thakur Prasad Singh and his sons, it was necessary for the Appellate Authority to have considered the same both in context with Thakur Prasad Singh and that of his sons, separately.

22. It is not disputed that Thakur Prasad Singh died during the pendency of the appeal, consequently, its impact also should have been considered, however, the same has not been done.

23. Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the opinion that in order to correctly determine the actual land to be declared surplus, the aforesaid plea regarding the case of the sons of Thakur Prasad Singh ought to have been taken note, of which unfortunately has not been done.

24. The determination of the land in light of the plea raised by the sons of Sri Thakur Prasad Singh requires entering into the factual matrix. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. The order dated 30.08.1994 passed by the Appellate Court is accordingly set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Appellate Court where the parties shall appear on 30th May, 2025. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties concerned and noticing their respective contentions shall re-determine the land in accordance with law as provided in Section 5 of the Act of 1960 by a reasoned and speaking order.

25. Since the matter has been engaging the attention of the Courts since several decades, it is expected that the parties shall cooperate before the Appellate Authority and in case if any parties chooses to misuse the liberty, the Appellate Authority will be within its rights to pass appropriate orders including imposing progressive costs.

26. With the aforesaid, the present petition is partly allowed in the - 9 - aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Asheesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench