Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P.Thr. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow

1. Heard Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.M. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge are the two orders dated 20th March, 2005 passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 13 of The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to the "Act of 1960"), as a consequence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31st October, 2002 has been affirmed.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 dated 05.01.2001 was issued to the petitioner wherein the total land indicated in the hands of the petitioner was shown to be 17.960 hectares. In response, the petitioner had filed his objections and it was categorically pleaded that the notice was bad for the simple reason that certain land belonging to Sri Anil Kumar Singh who is neither a relative nor a member of the family nor having anything to do with the petitioner or his property, yet the said land has been clubbed with that of the petitioner.

4. It was also stated that the land of the father of the petitioner namely Chutkau Singh has also been clubbed with that of the petitioner ignoring the fact Chutkau Singh was survived by his 7 daughters and in this view 2 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003 of the matter, as per the order of the succession as provided in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"), upon the death of Chutkau Singh, if there was any unmarried daughter, even she could have inherited and in that context, the entire land being clubbed with the land holding of the petitioner was not justified especially when on the date of death of Chutkau Singh, the total land held by him was 8.671 hectares.

5. It is thus urged that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the First Appellate Court considered this aspect of the matter and by blindly moving ahead and without recording reasons, the orders impugned have been passed which cannot be sustained.

6. Sri Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State refuting the aforesaid submission has urged that in so far as Anil Kumar Singh is concerned, he had a total area of 4.543 hectares and since it was found that the petitioner was looking after the said land and was in possession thereof, hence, 2.53 hectares from that of Sri Anil Kumar Singh has been added to the land of the petitioner to determine the ceiling limit.

7. It is also stated that Sri Anil Kumar Singh never assailed the order even though notice was issued to him and in such circumstances, it has appropriately been considered and dealt with by both by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority treating the land to be that of the petitioner and such findings cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

8. It is further urged that the petitioner was the only son of Chautkau Singh and the land in the name of Chutkau Singh would devolve on the petitioner and in this regard, the land held by him was breaching the ceiling limit, hence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority who have taken note of the material evidence on record are robust findings which do not require any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the counter affidavit filed by the State. 3 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003

10. At the outset, it may be noticed that the controversy involved in the instant petition hinges on two pivots:-

11. One relating to the land originally recorded in the name of Anil Kumar Singh which has been added to the land of the petitioner and second the land which the appellant held including noticing the land of Chutkau Singh, the original tenure-holder which as per the State counsel was inherited by the petitioner alone.

12. It is in the aforesaid context if the material available on record is seen including the two impugned orders, there is nothing to indicate as to what was the material available before the State Authorities to arrive at a finding that the land recorded in the name of Sri Anil Kumar Singh was actually the land held by the petitioner.

13. There is a reference to the material furnished by the petitioner indicating that Anil Kumr Singh, his parentage was different to that of the petitioner to indicate that they were not part of a family. Certain other documents regarding the ration card, inter alia was filed to indicate that there had been separate mess and living and there was no family congeniality between the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Singh.

14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop if the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are seen, it would indicate that an inference has been drawn without there being any cogent basis for it. Merely because the petitioner in order to substantiate his case had filed the documents belonging to Sri Anil Kumar Singh would not give rise to any presumption that both were of the same family. If there was a case treating the land to be benami, though, belonging to the petitioner then the same ought to have been established by cogent evidence which apparently was not available.

15. The petitioner in order to discharge his burden had already furnished the said documents indicating the separation of the families and the fact that Sri Anil Kumar Singh was nowhere connected to the petitioner and in this regard, if the State was contemplating adding the land of Sri Anil Kumar Singh with the land of the petitioner then it was their duty to have established regarding the plea of benami, if at all and to indicate that how 4 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003 the petitioner was actually the owner when that fact had already been denied from day one.

16. In absence of any material on record, merely to confiscate the land, if a presumption is drawn, that cannot be appreciated nor is the intent of law. Since the Act works in confiscating the land of a citizen, the burden lies on the State to prove its case which unfortunately has not been done.

17. Another strange reason which is reflected from the impugned orders is that the total land area of Sri Anil Kumar Singh was 4.543 hectares, half of that has been added to the land of the petitioner. This is a classic case of non-application of the judicial mind. If at all, the State was of the view that the said land in the name of Sri Anil Kumar Singh belonged to the petitioner then the entire land should have been clubbed, there was no way to arrive at any finding that half of 4.543 hectares would be treated to be the land in the hands of the petitioner.

18. Thus, the said findings is not only without any basis but even without any legal rationale and is apparently a perverse finding which cannot be sustained.

19. Coming to the other issue regarding the land inherited by the petitioner, in this regard, suffice to note that admittedly, the land was recorded in the name of Chutkau Singh of 4.031 hectares. It is also not disputed that on the date when the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued, the petitioner was already a major in age and he separately held land.

20. It is also not disputed that Chutkau Singh, apart from having a sole son (the petitioner) was also survived by is daughters. Chutkau Singh is said to have expired on 24.09.2001 and admittedly on that date, the succession would have opened and it would have to be noticed that who amongst the heirs of Chutkau Singh inherited the property.

21. Be that as it may, the petitioner being the major son and treating him to be the sole heir is concerned, even then, there ought to have been material to indicate as to how much land, the present petitioner could have held in his personal capacity and after succeeding to the estate of his 5 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003 father, how much exemption could have been granted depending on the nature of the land. Even this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of either by the Prescribed Authority or by the Appellate Authority rather by a single stroke it has been mentioned in the orders that the petitioner had sought the exemption but from the material on record, the Prescribed Authority found that the petitioner was not entitled to the said exemption, hence, rejected the plea.

22. What this Court finds is while returning such a finding, there is not a mention of any document or statement which had been filed by the parties before the Prescribed Authority upon which such a finding could have been arrived at. To that extent, the orders impugned indicate that the manner in which the surplus land is sought to have been calculated is also without cogent appreciation of material on record and even the law has not been followed and reasons of how much land has been exempted has also not been indicated. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly liable to be set aside.

24. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.10.2002 and the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 20.03.2003 are quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the court of the Prescribed Authority who shall make a re- determination of the land specifically taking note of the fact that the land of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, without there being any evidence available, could not have been clubbed with the land of the petitioner. Since the matter has been pending before this Court since 2003, accordingly, the Prescribed Authority shall accord expedition to the aforesaid matter and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall pass fresh orders taking note of the material available on record and the observations made by this Court, hereinabove.

25. In light of the aforesaid discussions, the petition is allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. October 30, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.M. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge are the two orders dated 20th March, 2005 passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 13 of The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to the "Act of 1960"), as a consequence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31st October, 2002 has been affirmed.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 dated 05.01.2001 was issued to the petitioner wherein the total land indicated in the hands of the petitioner was shown to be 17.960 hectares. In response, the petitioner had filed his objections and it was categorically pleaded that the notice was bad for the simple reason that certain land belonging to Sri Anil Kumar Singh who is neither a relative nor a member of the family nor having anything to do with the petitioner or his property, yet the said land has been clubbed with that of the petitioner.

4. It was also stated that the land of the father of the petitioner namely Chutkau Singh has also been clubbed with that of the petitioner ignoring the fact Chutkau Singh was survived by his 7 daughters and in this view 2 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003 of the matter, as per the order of the succession as provided in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"), upon the death of Chutkau Singh, if there was any unmarried daughter, even she could have inherited and in that context, the entire land being clubbed with the land holding of the petitioner was not justified especially when on the date of death of Chutkau Singh, the total land held by him was 8.671 hectares.

5. It is thus urged that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the First Appellate Court considered this aspect of the matter and by blindly moving ahead and without recording reasons, the orders impugned have been passed which cannot be sustained.

6. Sri Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State refuting the aforesaid submission has urged that in so far as Anil Kumar Singh is concerned, he had a total area of 4.543 hectares and since it was found that the petitioner was looking after the said land and was in possession thereof, hence, 2.53 hectares from that of Sri Anil Kumar Singh has been added to the land of the petitioner to determine the ceiling limit.

7. It is also stated that Sri Anil Kumar Singh never assailed the order even though notice was issued to him and in such circumstances, it has appropriately been considered and dealt with by both by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority treating the land to be that of the petitioner and such findings cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

8. It is further urged that the petitioner was the only son of Chautkau Singh and the land in the name of Chutkau Singh would devolve on the petitioner and in this regard, the land held by him was breaching the ceiling limit, hence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority who have taken note of the material evidence on record are robust findings which do not require any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the counter affidavit filed by the State. 3 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003

10. At the outset, it may be noticed that the controversy involved in the instant petition hinges on two pivots:-

11. One relating to the land originally recorded in the name of Anil Kumar Singh which has been added to the land of the petitioner and second the land which the appellant held including noticing the land of Chutkau Singh, the original tenure-holder which as per the State counsel was inherited by the petitioner alone.

12. It is in the aforesaid context if the material available on record is seen including the two impugned orders, there is nothing to indicate as to what was the material available before the State Authorities to arrive at a finding that the land recorded in the name of Sri Anil Kumar Singh was actually the land held by the petitioner.

13. There is a reference to the material furnished by the petitioner indicating that Anil Kumr Singh, his parentage was different to that of the petitioner to indicate that they were not part of a family. Certain other documents regarding the ration card, inter alia was filed to indicate that there had been separate mess and living and there was no family congeniality between the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Singh.

14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop if the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are seen, it would indicate that an inference has been drawn without there being any cogent basis for it. Merely because the petitioner in order to substantiate his case had filed the documents belonging to Sri Anil Kumar Singh would not give rise to any presumption that both were of the same family. If there was a case treating the land to be benami, though, belonging to the petitioner then the same ought to have been established by cogent evidence which apparently was not available.

15. The petitioner in order to discharge his burden had already furnished the said documents indicating the separation of the families and the fact that Sri Anil Kumar Singh was nowhere connected to the petitioner and in this regard, if the State was contemplating adding the land of Sri Anil Kumar Singh with the land of the petitioner then it was their duty to have established regarding the plea of benami, if at all and to indicate that how 4 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003 the petitioner was actually the owner when that fact had already been denied from day one.

16. In absence of any material on record, merely to confiscate the land, if a presumption is drawn, that cannot be appreciated nor is the intent of law. Since the Act works in confiscating the land of a citizen, the burden lies on the State to prove its case which unfortunately has not been done.

17. Another strange reason which is reflected from the impugned orders is that the total land area of Sri Anil Kumar Singh was 4.543 hectares, half of that has been added to the land of the petitioner. This is a classic case of non-application of the judicial mind. If at all, the State was of the view that the said land in the name of Sri Anil Kumar Singh belonged to the petitioner then the entire land should have been clubbed, there was no way to arrive at any finding that half of 4.543 hectares would be treated to be the land in the hands of the petitioner.

18. Thus, the said findings is not only without any basis but even without any legal rationale and is apparently a perverse finding which cannot be sustained.

19. Coming to the other issue regarding the land inherited by the petitioner, in this regard, suffice to note that admittedly, the land was recorded in the name of Chutkau Singh of 4.031 hectares. It is also not disputed that on the date when the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued, the petitioner was already a major in age and he separately held land.

20. It is also not disputed that Chutkau Singh, apart from having a sole son (the petitioner) was also survived by is daughters. Chutkau Singh is said to have expired on 24.09.2001 and admittedly on that date, the succession would have opened and it would have to be noticed that who amongst the heirs of Chutkau Singh inherited the property.

21. Be that as it may, the petitioner being the major son and treating him to be the sole heir is concerned, even then, there ought to have been material to indicate as to how much land, the present petitioner could have held in his personal capacity and after succeeding to the estate of his 5 WRIC No. 3000091 of 2003 father, how much exemption could have been granted depending on the nature of the land. Even this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of either by the Prescribed Authority or by the Appellate Authority rather by a single stroke it has been mentioned in the orders that the petitioner had sought the exemption but from the material on record, the Prescribed Authority found that the petitioner was not entitled to the said exemption, hence, rejected the plea.

22. What this Court finds is while returning such a finding, there is not a mention of any document or statement which had been filed by the parties before the Prescribed Authority upon which such a finding could have been arrived at. To that extent, the orders impugned indicate that the manner in which the surplus land is sought to have been calculated is also without cogent appreciation of material on record and even the law has not been followed and reasons of how much land has been exempted has also not been indicated. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly liable to be set aside.

24. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.10.2002 and the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 20.03.2003 are quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the court of the Prescribed Authority who shall make a re- determination of the land specifically taking note of the fact that the land of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, without there being any evidence available, could not have been clubbed with the land of the petitioner. Since the matter has been pending before this Court since 2003, accordingly, the Prescribed Authority shall accord expedition to the aforesaid matter and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall pass fresh orders taking note of the material available on record and the observations made by this Court, hereinabove.

25. In light of the aforesaid discussions, the petition is allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. October 30, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench