State v. Udai Pal Singh) was affirmed and the objections of the

1. Heard Sri U.S Sahai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Maurya learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal no.229/708/2/17/37 under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as an Act) whereby the appeal was dismissed, as a consequence, the impugned order dated 31.01.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case no.63 (State vs Udai Pal Singh) was affirmed and the objections of the petitioner were rejected.

3. The instant case has a prelude and it will be relevant to notice the facts giving rise to the instant petition. The proceedings were commenced under the Act of 1960 by issuing a notice to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Udai Pal Singh. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner had filed their objections and had raised a contention that the land available with the tenure holder was less than the ceiling limit as a compromise was arrived at between Udai Pal Singh and the other co-owners relating to the year, 1970 which was finally decided by the Consolidation Court on 14.07.1973.

4. The aforesaid contention did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority, accordingly, the matter travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition no.1352/1977. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.04.1979 noticed that the partition which was an outcome of a compromise was made on 15.09.1970 i.e. prior to the cut off date of 24.01.1971. The High Court further observed that the District Judge committed an error in observing that the partition was made after the prescribed date. The partition made before the Consolidation Authorities or before any competent authority is valid and binding unless it is found that it 2 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 was made with a purpose to defeat the object of the Ceiling Act. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Additional District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

5. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, the matter was considered by the Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and further remitted the same to be decided afresh. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Prescribed Authority once again by means of the order impugned dated 31.01.1980 rejected the objections and the same has been affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 10.09.2007 and it is these two orders which are under challenge in the instant petition.

6. Sri U.S Sahai learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily made a three fold submission. It was urged that the partition which had been arrived at between the co-owners had already received the seal of approval in writ petition no.1352 of 1977. The same was to be considered in its correct perspective but despite the observations of the High Court, both the appellate court as well as Prescribed Authority had ignored the same and moved on a tangent resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice.

7. t was further urged that the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have grossly erred in not making any determination as required in terms of Section 4-A of the Act, 1960. In absence of proper determination, the order dated 31.01.1980 declaring 11.784 acres of irrigated land as surplus is patently erroneous.

8. It was also urged that before arriving at any conclusion regarding the ceiling exemption limit and the area which was to be declared as surplus, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority to have taken note of the area which was available after the land holding had been made subject matter of compromise. The error which is apparent on the face of record is that the authorities have taken the full land as available and, thereafter, it has made the deductions without noticing that in the consolidation proceedings, the land of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had been reduced and after taking note of the same, it would reveal that the area actually in the hands of the tenure holder is less and therefore, the orders are bad in the eyes of law, accordingly, they are liable to be set aside after allowing the writ petition.

9. Sri J.P. Maurya learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has urged that the order passed by the High Court had given leverage to the authorities concerned to ascertain as to whether the compromise was appropriately arrived at between the parties or it was with the object of defeating the spirit behind the Ceiling Act, 1960. 3 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007

10. It is urged that in furtherance thereof, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have taken note of the evidence led and it also noticed the compromise arrived at between the parties and further noticed that there was no averment in the compromise which would indicate that what was the purpose behind arriving at the compromise and in such circumstances, the same did not meet the requirement of law. In large number of cases, in order to defeat the declaration of land as surplus under the Ceiling Act, the compromise, sale deed interalia other instruments were executed and, thus, if the petitioner was seeking exemption from the ceiling limit, it was the duty of the petitioner to have established by evidence that the compromise was bonafide and in absence thereof the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority were justified in ignoring the same and treating the said compromise as an instrument to defeat the purpose of the Ceiling Act.

11. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has further urged that once the said compromise has been ignored that it was not bona fide that entire land holding ought to have been considered and the same was done and on the aforesaid basis making a distinction relating to irrigated and unirrigated land the order impugned has been passed which has been affirmed in an appeal and these being findings of fact are not amenable for interference in writ jurisdiction, consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

13. The core issue involved in the instant petition emerges from the compromise dated 15.09.1970. It is not disputed that the said compromise dated 15.09.1970 was arrived at between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and other co-sharers before the Consolidation Authorities. It could not be disputed by the State counsel that Consolidation Authorities have the power and jurisdiction to record a compromise and even partition between the co-sharers, as per Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

14. It is an undisputed fact that the date of the compromise is 15.09.1970 which is prior to the first cut of date 24.01.1971. It may be true that the order of the Consolidation Authority acknowledging the said partition is dated 14.07.1973 but that in itself will not give rise to any inference to indicate that the compromise is malafide or it is after the first cutoff date of 24.01.1971.

15. This has also been very well noticed by the High Court in writ petition no.1352 of 1977. A copy of the said order dated 11.04.1979 passed in Writ Petition no.1352 of 1977 has been brought on record as Annexure no.3 and for the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereinafter:- 4 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 "One of the controversies raised before the Prescribed Authority was whether there was a partition of the khata in dispute between the petitioner and his other co-sharers as a result of which his share was reduced. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the objection as there was no evidence before him in support of the plea that there was no evidence before him in support of the plea that there was partition between the co- sharers. Before the Appellate Authority the petitioner filed copies of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the copy of Form CH-23 showing that during consolidation operation the share of the petitioner was partitioned and determined. The appellate authority admitted these documents but dismissed the appeal, as according to him, the partition was made after due date by the consolidation authorities. A certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, from which it is clear that the partition was made on 15th September, 1970 i.e. prior to 24th January, 1971. The observation, therefore, of the District Judge that the partition was made after the prescribed date was incorrect. He was further wrong in ignoring the partition deed only because it was made by the consolidation authorities. The partition made before the consolidation authorities or before any competent authority is valid and binding unless it is found that it was made with a purpose to defeat the purpose of Ceiling Act. As the Additional District Judge has proceeded on a misapprehension his order cannot be maintained."

16. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be clear that prima facie the said compromise was found acceptable by the High Court. In order to find that the said compromise was not binding, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have introduced some cogent reason and material for doing so or else it was bound by the observations of the High Court made in the order dated 11.04.1979.

17. Another important aspect of the matter which is evident from the order of High Court as noticed above is that the High Court had clearly noticed that the observations made by the District Judge that the partition was made after the Prescribed Authority was incorrect and that he was wrong in ignoring the partition deed only because it was made by the Consolidation Authorities and this finding of the appellate authority had been washed out by the High Court. Thus, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority were bound to take the said partition/compromise dated 15.09.1970 as a valid document unless the contrary could be proved. Needless to say that the Additional Chief Standing counsel could not indicate any material available on record to establish that the said compromise was invalid or was arrived at only to defeat the objective of the Act, 1960.

18. On the contrary, the record would indicate that one of the co-sharers was also a party to the said compromise dated 15.09.1970 against whom proceedings under the Ceiling Act, were initiated by the State, i.e. case related to Krishna Pal Singh, it would reveal that in this case the very same compromise dated 15.09.1970 was noticed and accepted by the authorities. A copy of the order passed in favour of Krishna Pal Singh passed in Appeal no.3/2/18/15 dated 10.09.2007 has been placed on record as Annexure no.8 and in this context the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel could not advance any submission or to indicate any material by virtue of which it 5 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 should be noticed that the said compromise was not acted upon. Once compromise was acted upon already taken note of by an Authority of the State in case of one co-sharers accordingly the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority could not have taken a different view and that too without there being any cogent evidence and more importantly by ignoring the specific observations made by the High Court in its order dated 11.04.1979 passed in Writ Petition no.1352/1977.

19. In light of the aforesaid facts and material on record, if the impugned order dated 31.01.1980 is seen, it would reveal that the sole ground for ignoring the compromise as recorded by the Prescribed Authority in its order is that there was no reason indicated in the compromise as to why it was being arrived at. It also noticed that there were certain rumours regarding the advent of the ceiling laws and based upon such rumours the Prescribed Authority recorded that the compromise was not bona fide. This finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority in its order dated 10.09.2007.

20. This Court having taken note of the aforesaid is of the clear view that the findings of the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority are patently erroneous. The findings cannot be based on rumour mongering. In the instant case, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority to have noticed the observations of the High Court and in absence of any cogent material and evidence, the findings were binding on the Prescribed Authority and it clearly over stepped its jurisdiction by ignoring the observation of the High Court in the order dated 11.04.1979. This aspect has also not been noticed by the appellate authority who has merely echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the Prescribed Authority. This Court is of the clear view that the aforesaid findings treating the compromise to be bad is erroneous and cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

21. Once the aforesaid pleading regarding compromise has been set aside for the reasons recorded hereinabove, it will only be appropriate that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority be set aside and the issue regarding redetermination of the surplus land be undertaken after noticing how much land has come into the hands of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Udai Pal Singh in furtherance of compromise. It will be make a fresh redetermination in terms of Section 4-A and will also consider as to how much land is to be excluded and would make a proper determination of irrigated and unirrigated land taking note of the provisions of Section 4-A and 5 of the Act of 1960. Since the impugned orders are primarily based on treating the compromise as bad which has been set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2007 and 31.01.1980 are set aside.

22. The writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.1980 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 10.09.2007 6 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 passed by the appellate authority. The matter shall stand remitted to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the land considering the observations made hereinabove.

23. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

24. No order as to costs. November 12, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri U.S Sahai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Maurya learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal no.229/708/2/17/37 under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as an Act) whereby the appeal was dismissed, as a consequence, the impugned order dated 31.01.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case no.63 (State vs Udai Pal Singh) was affirmed and the objections of the petitioner were rejected.

3. The instant case has a prelude and it will be relevant to notice the facts giving rise to the instant petition. The proceedings were commenced under the Act of 1960 by issuing a notice to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Udai Pal Singh. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner had filed their objections and had raised a contention that the land available with the tenure holder was less than the ceiling limit as a compromise was arrived at between Udai Pal Singh and the other co-owners relating to the year, 1970 which was finally decided by the Consolidation Court on 14.07.1973.

4. The aforesaid contention did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority, accordingly, the matter travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition no.1352/1977. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.04.1979 noticed that the partition which was an outcome of a compromise was made on 15.09.1970 i.e. prior to the cut off date of 24.01.1971. The High Court further observed that the District Judge committed an error in observing that the partition was made after the prescribed date. The partition made before the Consolidation Authorities or before any competent authority is valid and binding unless it is found that it 2 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 was made with a purpose to defeat the object of the Ceiling Act. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Additional District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

5. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, the matter was considered by the Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and further remitted the same to be decided afresh. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Prescribed Authority once again by means of the order impugned dated 31.01.1980 rejected the objections and the same has been affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 10.09.2007 and it is these two orders which are under challenge in the instant petition.

6. Sri U.S Sahai learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily made a three fold submission. It was urged that the partition which had been arrived at between the co-owners had already received the seal of approval in writ petition no.1352 of 1977. The same was to be considered in its correct perspective but despite the observations of the High Court, both the appellate court as well as Prescribed Authority had ignored the same and moved on a tangent resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice.

7. t was further urged that the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have grossly erred in not making any determination as required in terms of Section 4-A of the Act, 1960. In absence of proper determination, the order dated 31.01.1980 declaring 11.784 acres of irrigated land as surplus is patently erroneous.

8. It was also urged that before arriving at any conclusion regarding the ceiling exemption limit and the area which was to be declared as surplus, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority to have taken note of the area which was available after the land holding had been made subject matter of compromise. The error which is apparent on the face of record is that the authorities have taken the full land as available and, thereafter, it has made the deductions without noticing that in the consolidation proceedings, the land of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had been reduced and after taking note of the same, it would reveal that the area actually in the hands of the tenure holder is less and therefore, the orders are bad in the eyes of law, accordingly, they are liable to be set aside after allowing the writ petition.

9. Sri J.P. Maurya learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has urged that the order passed by the High Court had given leverage to the authorities concerned to ascertain as to whether the compromise was appropriately arrived at between the parties or it was with the object of defeating the spirit behind the Ceiling Act, 1960. 3 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007

10. It is urged that in furtherance thereof, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have taken note of the evidence led and it also noticed the compromise arrived at between the parties and further noticed that there was no averment in the compromise which would indicate that what was the purpose behind arriving at the compromise and in such circumstances, the same did not meet the requirement of law. In large number of cases, in order to defeat the declaration of land as surplus under the Ceiling Act, the compromise, sale deed interalia other instruments were executed and, thus, if the petitioner was seeking exemption from the ceiling limit, it was the duty of the petitioner to have established by evidence that the compromise was bonafide and in absence thereof the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority were justified in ignoring the same and treating the said compromise as an instrument to defeat the purpose of the Ceiling Act.

11. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has further urged that once the said compromise has been ignored that it was not bona fide that entire land holding ought to have been considered and the same was done and on the aforesaid basis making a distinction relating to irrigated and unirrigated land the order impugned has been passed which has been affirmed in an appeal and these being findings of fact are not amenable for interference in writ jurisdiction, consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

13. The core issue involved in the instant petition emerges from the compromise dated 15.09.1970. It is not disputed that the said compromise dated 15.09.1970 was arrived at between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and other co-sharers before the Consolidation Authorities. It could not be disputed by the State counsel that Consolidation Authorities have the power and jurisdiction to record a compromise and even partition between the co-sharers, as per Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

14. It is an undisputed fact that the date of the compromise is 15.09.1970 which is prior to the first cut of date 24.01.1971. It may be true that the order of the Consolidation Authority acknowledging the said partition is dated 14.07.1973 but that in itself will not give rise to any inference to indicate that the compromise is malafide or it is after the first cutoff date of 24.01.1971.

15. This has also been very well noticed by the High Court in writ petition no.1352 of 1977. A copy of the said order dated 11.04.1979 passed in Writ Petition no.1352 of 1977 has been brought on record as Annexure no.3 and for the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereinafter:- 4 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 "One of the controversies raised before the Prescribed Authority was whether there was a partition of the khata in dispute between the petitioner and his other co-sharers as a result of which his share was reduced. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the objection as there was no evidence before him in support of the plea that there was no evidence before him in support of the plea that there was partition between the co- sharers. Before the Appellate Authority the petitioner filed copies of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the copy of Form CH-23 showing that during consolidation operation the share of the petitioner was partitioned and determined. The appellate authority admitted these documents but dismissed the appeal, as according to him, the partition was made after due date by the consolidation authorities. A certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, from which it is clear that the partition was made on 15th September, 1970 i.e. prior to 24th January, 1971. The observation, therefore, of the District Judge that the partition was made after the prescribed date was incorrect. He was further wrong in ignoring the partition deed only because it was made by the consolidation authorities. The partition made before the consolidation authorities or before any competent authority is valid and binding unless it is found that it was made with a purpose to defeat the purpose of Ceiling Act. As the Additional District Judge has proceeded on a misapprehension his order cannot be maintained."

16. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be clear that prima facie the said compromise was found acceptable by the High Court. In order to find that the said compromise was not binding, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have introduced some cogent reason and material for doing so or else it was bound by the observations of the High Court made in the order dated 11.04.1979.

17. Another important aspect of the matter which is evident from the order of High Court as noticed above is that the High Court had clearly noticed that the observations made by the District Judge that the partition was made after the Prescribed Authority was incorrect and that he was wrong in ignoring the partition deed only because it was made by the Consolidation Authorities and this finding of the appellate authority had been washed out by the High Court. Thus, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority were bound to take the said partition/compromise dated 15.09.1970 as a valid document unless the contrary could be proved. Needless to say that the Additional Chief Standing counsel could not indicate any material available on record to establish that the said compromise was invalid or was arrived at only to defeat the objective of the Act, 1960.

18. On the contrary, the record would indicate that one of the co-sharers was also a party to the said compromise dated 15.09.1970 against whom proceedings under the Ceiling Act, were initiated by the State, i.e. case related to Krishna Pal Singh, it would reveal that in this case the very same compromise dated 15.09.1970 was noticed and accepted by the authorities. A copy of the order passed in favour of Krishna Pal Singh passed in Appeal no.3/2/18/15 dated 10.09.2007 has been placed on record as Annexure no.8 and in this context the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel could not advance any submission or to indicate any material by virtue of which it 5 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 should be noticed that the said compromise was not acted upon. Once compromise was acted upon already taken note of by an Authority of the State in case of one co-sharers accordingly the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority could not have taken a different view and that too without there being any cogent evidence and more importantly by ignoring the specific observations made by the High Court in its order dated 11.04.1979 passed in Writ Petition no.1352/1977.

19. In light of the aforesaid facts and material on record, if the impugned order dated 31.01.1980 is seen, it would reveal that the sole ground for ignoring the compromise as recorded by the Prescribed Authority in its order is that there was no reason indicated in the compromise as to why it was being arrived at. It also noticed that there were certain rumours regarding the advent of the ceiling laws and based upon such rumours the Prescribed Authority recorded that the compromise was not bona fide. This finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority in its order dated 10.09.2007.

20. This Court having taken note of the aforesaid is of the clear view that the findings of the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority are patently erroneous. The findings cannot be based on rumour mongering. In the instant case, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority to have noticed the observations of the High Court and in absence of any cogent material and evidence, the findings were binding on the Prescribed Authority and it clearly over stepped its jurisdiction by ignoring the observation of the High Court in the order dated 11.04.1979. This aspect has also not been noticed by the appellate authority who has merely echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the Prescribed Authority. This Court is of the clear view that the aforesaid findings treating the compromise to be bad is erroneous and cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

21. Once the aforesaid pleading regarding compromise has been set aside for the reasons recorded hereinabove, it will only be appropriate that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority be set aside and the issue regarding redetermination of the surplus land be undertaken after noticing how much land has come into the hands of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Udai Pal Singh in furtherance of compromise. It will be make a fresh redetermination in terms of Section 4-A and will also consider as to how much land is to be excluded and would make a proper determination of irrigated and unirrigated land taking note of the provisions of Section 4-A and 5 of the Act of 1960. Since the impugned orders are primarily based on treating the compromise as bad which has been set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2007 and 31.01.1980 are set aside.

22. The writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.1980 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 10.09.2007 6 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2007 passed by the appellate authority. The matter shall stand remitted to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the land considering the observations made hereinabove.

23. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

24. No order as to costs. November 12, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench