Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

Heard Sri J.P. Maurya learned Standing counsel for the State petitioner and Sri M.A Khan learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan learned counsel for the private respondent. By means of the instant petition preferred in the year, 2008, the petitioner assails the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the appellate court in an Appeal no.42/5/87-88 (Randhir Singh and Anrs v State of U.P and ors) whereby the appeal of the private respondent was allowed and the notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 has been discharged. Submission of learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State is that the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to Smt. Ram Rati who was alleged to be the widow of Shiv Nath Singh. Sri Randhir Singh was said to be son of Pahalwan Singh is said to be the step brother of Shiv Nath Singh. In pursuance of the notice, objections were filed by Randhir Singh and it was stated therein that Sri Randhir Singh and Shiv Nath both had half share in the property. It was further stated that Randhir Singh had been adopted by Indrasen Singh. During the proceedings, the issue arose as to whether the land held by Randhir Singh and Ram Rati could be clubbed as being joint tenure holders and whether Indrasen Singh who was the adopted son of Ram Rati. In the earlier round of litigation, the Prescribed Authority held that 2 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 Ram Rati was not the widow of Shiv Nath Singh and even the adoption of Randhir Singh was not as per law and thereby declared 19 bighas, 5 biswa and 6 biswansi of land has surplus land relating khasra plot nos.169 and 126 of village Madaripur. The petitioner Randhir Singh and Indrasen Singh both preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Lucknow and the appeal was partly allowed on

13.12.1976. Randhir Singh and Indrasen Singh further carried the matter in a writ petition filed before the High Court bearing no.355 of 1977. The aforesaid writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court by means of judgement dated 18.09.1979 and the matter was remitted to the appellate court for decision afresh. During the aforesaid period, U.P. Act no.03 of 1986 was enforced which had the impact of amending the powers of the appellate court under the Act of 1960. After the matter was remitted by the High Court, the appellate court was first required to record the finding as to whether Ram Rati was widow of Shiv Nath. Depending on the finding recorded in respect of the aforesaid questions, the necessary consequence and its impact on the adoption would be considered. It is urged that this finding as to whether Ramrati was the widow of Shiv Nath Singh was considered appropriately against which the private respondent preferred an appeal which came to be allowed on 31.10.1994 and the notice under Section 10(2) was discharged and being aggrieved the State has filed the instant petition. It is further urged that the aforesaid issue has not been appropriately considered by the appellate court, hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has primarily urged that it is quiet strange that an order which was passed on 31.10.1994 is sought to be assailed by the State in the year, 2008 i.e after about 14 years specially when there was clear direction by the State authorities not to assail the order. It is further urged that the question as to whether Ram Rati was the widow of Shiv Nath Singh had been considered on the basis of evidence and positive finding was recorded. As far as Indrasen Singh is concerned, he was said to be adopted son of Shiv Nath Singh and the adoption was also 3 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 evidenced by a registered deed which has a presumption in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the State disputed the adoption deed then the burden was on the State to establish that adoption was not valid. Even though the presumption in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is rebuttable but the fact remains that in absence of any proof, a registered deed would prevail, subject to being unless it could be shown that the deed was either fraudulent or no such adoption could have been done in accordance with law. Having failed to establish this fact, it was no more open for the State to have challenge it. In the aforesaid circumstances, only to harass the petitioner and with a knee jerk reaction, the instant petition has been filed which deserves to be dismissed. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, what transpires is the fact that the State instituted the aforesaid proceedings indirectly trying to challenge the adoption deed on the premise that Indrasen Singh was son of Randhir Singh and not son of Shiv Nath Singh. This is sought to be canvassed on the ground that Indrasen Singh was being represented through his guardian Randhir Singh. It is sought to be urged that had Indrasen being son of Shiv Nath Singh then he would have been represented through his adopted parents and could not be represented through Randhir Singh (who is said to be his putative father). It is in the aforesaid context, it is urged that the land of Randhir Singh should have been clubbed and in order to avoid the ceiling proceedings, it has been shown that Indrasen Singh is the adopted son of Shiv Nath Singh. The aforesaid submission does not appear to reason on account of the following:- (i) As far as the issue regarding Ramrati being wife of Shiv Nath Singh is concerned, the State could not indicate any evidence or lead any evidence which could be treated to support the alleged contention that Ram Rati was not the widow of Shiv Nath Singh. This having been decided in the 4 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 earlier round and after more than 14 years, the issue is now sought to be racked up does not indicate bonafide. (ii) As far as the status of Indrasen Singh is concerned, there is a clear registered adoption deed and the same till date has neither been assailed or set aside by any competent court and in this view, the presumption of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 is clearly attracted. Merely because Indrasen Singh was being represented through Randhir Singh who was his natural father cannot be taken to be a ground that the adoption is effected by malafides or said to have been executed for the purposes of avoiding the ceiling limit. (iii) If at all the State had any such apprehension, then this should have been raised at the first opportunity when the notices were issued as at that point of time Indrasen Singh was a minor and was represented through his natural father and it was open for the State to have taken a plea that there was a conflict of interest and guardian ad-litem ought to have been appointed, but no such effort was made. It will also be relevant to notice that once the adoption deed remained intact there was no direct or indirect challenge to it and the State who had lost in appeal and there is material on record to indicate that when the petitioner State sought permission to file a petition, the same was refused, however, without explaining the latches the petition has been filed after 14 years which also does not reflect well specially when the State did not produce any evidence either to assail the issue relating to Ram Rati not being widow of Shiv Nath Singh as also regarding the registered adoption deed. Apart from what has been stated hereinabove, it will also be relevant to note the observations made by this Court in its judgment dated

18.09.1979 passed in Writ petition no.355 of 1977 (Randhir Singh and Anrs vs State of U.P. and ors) and the relevant part is being reproduced hereinafter: "It may be noticed at this stage, that the adoption was made in the year, 1975 and was evidenced by a registered deed. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides that whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court 5 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. It was not the finding of both the authorities below that the adoption had not been made in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The deed of adoption was filed and, therefore, the court under Section 16 of the Act had to presume that the adoption had in fact been made in compliance with the provisions of the said Act." The above quoted portion also is indicative of the fact that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act 1956 was clearly attracted and the said finding and observation of the High Court in its judgment dated

18.09.1979 was never disputed by either the State or the other contesting parties. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, once the issue was settled that Indrasen Singh was the adopted son of Shiv Nath Singh and Smt. Ram Rati was the widow of Shiv Nath Singh and considering the aforesaid, the notice under Section 10(2) was discharged, the said finding of the appellate court does not suffer from any error and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the State is completely misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. October 28, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri J.P. Maurya learned Standing counsel for the State petitioner and Sri M.A Khan learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan learned counsel for the private respondent. By means of the instant petition preferred in the year, 2008, the petitioner assails the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the appellate court in an Appeal no.42/5/87-88 (Randhir Singh and Anrs v State of U.P and ors) whereby the appeal of the private respondent was allowed and the notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 has been discharged. Submission of learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State is that the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to Smt. Ram Rati who was alleged to be the widow of Shiv Nath Singh. Sri Randhir Singh was said to be son of Pahalwan Singh is said to be the step brother of Shiv Nath Singh. In pursuance of the notice, objections were filed by Randhir Singh and it was stated therein that Sri Randhir Singh and Shiv Nath both had half share in the property. It was further stated that Randhir Singh had been adopted by Indrasen Singh. During the proceedings, the issue arose as to whether the land held by Randhir Singh and Ram Rati could be clubbed as being joint tenure holders and whether Indrasen Singh who was the adopted son of Ram Rati. In the earlier round of litigation, the Prescribed Authority held that 2 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 Ram Rati was not the widow of Shiv Nath Singh and even the adoption of Randhir Singh was not as per law and thereby declared 19 bighas, 5 biswa and 6 biswansi of land has surplus land relating khasra plot nos.169 and 126 of village Madaripur. The petitioner Randhir Singh and Indrasen Singh both preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Lucknow and the appeal was partly allowed on

13.12.1976. Randhir Singh and Indrasen Singh further carried the matter in a writ petition filed before the High Court bearing no.355 of 1977. The aforesaid writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court by means of judgement dated 18.09.1979 and the matter was remitted to the appellate court for decision afresh. During the aforesaid period, U.P. Act no.03 of 1986 was enforced which had the impact of amending the powers of the appellate court under the Act of 1960. After the matter was remitted by the High Court, the appellate court was first required to record the finding as to whether Ram Rati was widow of Shiv Nath. Depending on the finding recorded in respect of the aforesaid questions, the necessary consequence and its impact on the adoption would be considered. It is urged that this finding as to whether Ramrati was the widow of Shiv Nath Singh was considered appropriately against which the private respondent preferred an appeal which came to be allowed on 31.10.1994 and the notice under Section 10(2) was discharged and being aggrieved the State has filed the instant petition. It is further urged that the aforesaid issue has not been appropriately considered by the appellate court, hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has primarily urged that it is quiet strange that an order which was passed on 31.10.1994 is sought to be assailed by the State in the year, 2008 i.e after about 14 years specially when there was clear direction by the State authorities not to assail the order. It is further urged that the question as to whether Ram Rati was the widow of Shiv Nath Singh had been considered on the basis of evidence and positive finding was recorded. As far as Indrasen Singh is concerned, he was said to be adopted son of Shiv Nath Singh and the adoption was also 3 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 evidenced by a registered deed which has a presumption in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the State disputed the adoption deed then the burden was on the State to establish that adoption was not valid. Even though the presumption in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is rebuttable but the fact remains that in absence of any proof, a registered deed would prevail, subject to being unless it could be shown that the deed was either fraudulent or no such adoption could have been done in accordance with law. Having failed to establish this fact, it was no more open for the State to have challenge it. In the aforesaid circumstances, only to harass the petitioner and with a knee jerk reaction, the instant petition has been filed which deserves to be dismissed. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, what transpires is the fact that the State instituted the aforesaid proceedings indirectly trying to challenge the adoption deed on the premise that Indrasen Singh was son of Randhir Singh and not son of Shiv Nath Singh. This is sought to be canvassed on the ground that Indrasen Singh was being represented through his guardian Randhir Singh. It is sought to be urged that had Indrasen being son of Shiv Nath Singh then he would have been represented through his adopted parents and could not be represented through Randhir Singh (who is said to be his putative father). It is in the aforesaid context, it is urged that the land of Randhir Singh should have been clubbed and in order to avoid the ceiling proceedings, it has been shown that Indrasen Singh is the adopted son of Shiv Nath Singh. The aforesaid submission does not appear to reason on account of the following:- (i) As far as the issue regarding Ramrati being wife of Shiv Nath Singh is concerned, the State could not indicate any evidence or lead any evidence which could be treated to support the alleged contention that Ram Rati was not the widow of Shiv Nath Singh. This having been decided in the 4 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 earlier round and after more than 14 years, the issue is now sought to be racked up does not indicate bonafide. (ii) As far as the status of Indrasen Singh is concerned, there is a clear registered adoption deed and the same till date has neither been assailed or set aside by any competent court and in this view, the presumption of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 is clearly attracted. Merely because Indrasen Singh was being represented through Randhir Singh who was his natural father cannot be taken to be a ground that the adoption is effected by malafides or said to have been executed for the purposes of avoiding the ceiling limit. (iii) If at all the State had any such apprehension, then this should have been raised at the first opportunity when the notices were issued as at that point of time Indrasen Singh was a minor and was represented through his natural father and it was open for the State to have taken a plea that there was a conflict of interest and guardian ad-litem ought to have been appointed, but no such effort was made. It will also be relevant to notice that once the adoption deed remained intact there was no direct or indirect challenge to it and the State who had lost in appeal and there is material on record to indicate that when the petitioner State sought permission to file a petition, the same was refused, however, without explaining the latches the petition has been filed after 14 years which also does not reflect well specially when the State did not produce any evidence either to assail the issue relating to Ram Rati not being widow of Shiv Nath Singh as also regarding the registered adoption deed. Apart from what has been stated hereinabove, it will also be relevant to note the observations made by this Court in its judgment dated

18.09.1979 passed in Writ petition no.355 of 1977 (Randhir Singh and Anrs vs State of U.P. and ors) and the relevant part is being reproduced hereinafter: "It may be noticed at this stage, that the adoption was made in the year, 1975 and was evidenced by a registered deed. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides that whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court 5 WRIC No. 3000102 of 2008 shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. It was not the finding of both the authorities below that the adoption had not been made in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The deed of adoption was filed and, therefore, the court under Section 16 of the Act had to presume that the adoption had in fact been made in compliance with the provisions of the said Act." The above quoted portion also is indicative of the fact that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act 1956 was clearly attracted and the said finding and observation of the High Court in its judgment dated

18.09.1979 was never disputed by either the State or the other contesting parties. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, once the issue was settled that Indrasen Singh was the adopted son of Shiv Nath Singh and Smt. Ram Rati was the widow of Shiv Nath Singh and considering the aforesaid, the notice under Section 10(2) was discharged, the said finding of the appellate court does not suffer from any error and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the State is completely misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. October 28, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench