1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8166 OF 2003

CHHEDI LAL                                 Appellant

                VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                       Respondents

JUDGMENT

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment  

dated  October  11,  2002  rendered  by  the  learned  Single  

Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Civil  

Side) in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709 of  

1995 by which the order dated February 28, 1995 passed by  

the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Uttar

2 Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960  

(the  Act  for  short)  declaring  16.95  acres  of  land  as  

surplus  holding  of  the  appellant  and  the  order  dated  

August  14,  1995  passed  by  the  appellate  authority  

affirming the order of the prescribed authority, have been  

upheld.   

The appellant is resident of village Shingpur Mafi,  

Tehsil Atarra, Distt. Banda, U.P.  He is tenure holder.  

The  Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Atarra  submitted  a  report  

dated  27.9.91,  stating  that  the  appellant  was  holding  

16.95 acres of land in excess of the prescribed ceiling  

limit.  Therefore, he was served with a notice dated March  

24, 1993 under Section 10(2) of the Act calling upon him  

to  show  cause,  as  to  why  land  admeasuring  16.95  acres  

mentioned in the notice out of his total holding be not  

declared as surplus.  On receipt of the said notice, the

3 appellant filed his objections on July 30, 1993.  In the  

objections, it was mentioned that in khata No. 132, the  

deceased father of the appellant was having 1/4th share and  

not 1/3rd share as mentioned in the notice whereas in khata  

Nos. 138 and 341, he had only 1/8th share.  It was also  

mentioned that lands of khata Nos. 180, 349, 1456 and 177  

were  already  sold  out  through  the  sale  deeds  dated  

February 5, 1973 and July 16, 1973 and therefor notice  

issued was illegal.  The case of the appellant in the  

objections was that on January 10, 1980, the members of  

his family had entered into a family settlement wherein  

the land was partitioned and as his two major sons were  

entitled  to  hold  2  hectares  of  land  each,  he  was  not  

holding any surplus land.  According to the appellant, the  

notice  also  related  to  un-irrigated  land  and  it  was  

further stated that the un-irrigated land was liable to be

4 excluded  while  determining  the  question  whether  he  was  

holding  the  land  in  excess  or  not.   By  filing  the  

objections, the appellant pleaded that he was not holding  

16.95 acres of land in excess of the prescribed limit.

The prescribed authority framed necessary issues for  

determination.  The appellant adduced evidence in support  

of his case.  After considering the evidence adduced by  

the appellant, the prescribed authority, by order dated  

February 28, 1995, held that the appellant was holding  

16.95 acres of land as surplus land.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred Appeal No.  

23/1994-95  before  the  Commissioner,  Jhansi  Division,  

Jhansi.  The appellate authority confirmed the findings  

recorded  by  the  prescribed  authority  and  dismissed  the  

appeal by judgment dated August 14, 1995.  Thereupon the  

appellant invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High

5 Court  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  by  filing  

Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709 of 1995 and  

challenged the order of the prescribed authority as well  

as that of the appellate authority.  The High Court by the  

impugned order has dismissed the writ petition giving rise  

to the present appeal.

This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and considered the documents forming part of the appeal.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for  

the appellant is that the deceased father of the appellant  

had inherited 1/4th share from the properties left by his  

uncle Ram Gopal and, therefore, the authorities below as  

well as the High Court committed error in holding that the  

appellant had inherited 1/3rd share, while determining the  

question  whether  the  appellant  was  holding  any  surplus

6 land or not.  The pedigree of the family as given in the  

impugned  judgment  indicates  that  one  Mr.  Jagannath  was  

original owner of the disputed land.  He had four sons  

i.e. (1) Parag, (2) Beni Prasad, (3) Bhagwat and (4) Ram  

Gopal.  It is not in dispute that Mr. Parag, Mr. Beni  

Prasad and Mr. Bhagwat pre-deceased Mr. Ram Gopal.  It is  

also not in dispute that Ram Gopal expired in the year  

1965  intestate  without  any  issue.   It  is  not  in  

controversy that deceased Mr. Ram Gopal being a bhumidhar,  

his  holding  would  devolve  upon  his  heirs  being  the  

relatives as provided under Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari  

Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act of 1950, for  

short).

Section 171 of the Act of 1950, reads as under:-

171.  General  order  of  succession.-  (1)  

Subject to the provisions of Section 169,

7 when a bhumidhar or asami, being a male  

dies, his interest in his holding shall  

devolve upon his heirs being the relatives  

specified in sub-section (2) in accordance  

with the following principles, namely:-

(i) the heirs specified in any one clause  

of  sub-section  (2)  shall  take  

simultaneously in equal shares;

(ii) the heirs specified in any preceding  

clause of sub-section (2) shall take  

to  the  exclusion  of  all  heirs  

specified in succeeding clauses, that  

is to say, those in clause (a) shall  

be preferred to those in clause (b),  

those  in  clause  (b)  shall  be  

preferred to those in clause (c ),  

and so on, in succession;

(iii)if there are more widows than one, of  

the  bhumidhar  or  asami,  or  of  any  

predeceased  male  lineal  descendant,

8 who  would  have  been  an  heir,  if  

alive, all such widows together shall  

take one share;

(iv) the widow or widowed mother or the  

father's widowed mother or the widow  

of  any  predeceased  male  lineal  

descendant  who  would  have  been  an  

heir, if alive, shall inherit only if  

she has not remarried.

(2) The following relatives of the male  

bhumidhar or asami are heirs subject to  

the  provisions  of  sub-section  (1),  

namely:-

[(a) widow,  unmarried  daughter  and  the  

male lineal descendant per stripes:

Provided that the widow and the son  

of a predeceased son of a predeceased  

son how low-so-ever per stirpes shall  

inherit  the  share  which  would  have  

devolved upon the predeceased son had

9 he been alive;

(b) mother and father

(c) . . .

(d) married daughter

(e) brother  and  unmarried  sister  being  

respectively the son and the daughter  

of the same father as the deceased;  

and son of a predeceased brother, the  

predeceased brother having been the  

son  of  a  predeceased  brother,  the  

predeceased brother having been the  

son  of  the  same  father  as  the  

deceased;

(f) son's daughter;

(g) father's mother and father's father;

(h) daughter's son;

(i) married sister;

(j) half  sister, being  the daughter  of  

the same father as the deceased;

(k) sister son

10 (l) half sister's son, the sister having  

been the daughter of the same father  

as the deceased;

(m) brother's son's son;

(n) mother's mother's son;

(o) father's father's son's son]”

A glance, at the above quoted provisions makes it  

clear  that  when  a  bhumidhar  being  a  male,  dies,  his  

interest in his holding devolves upon his heirs being the  

relatives specified in sub-section (2), in accordance with  

the principles, specified in sub-section (1) of Section  

171.  The principle of devolvement mentioned in Section  

171 (1) (i) is that the heirs specified in any one clause  

of sub-section (2), take interest in holding of a deceased  

bhumidhar simultaneously in equal shares.  Sub-clause (e)  

of  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  171  of  the  Act  of  1950

11 specifies and includes, inter alia, son of a predeceased  

brother, the predeceased brother having been the son of  

the same father as the deceased.              

Therefore, in terms of Section 171 of the `the Act of  

1950', the properties left by Mr. Ram Gopal would devolve  

on sons of his three brothers who had predeceased him.  

The names of sons of his three brothers are (1) Rajaram,  

(2) Shiva Mohan, (3) Surajdeen and (4) Shivbalak.  It may  

be mentioned that the appellant i.e. Chhedilal is the son  

of  deceased  Surajdeen,  who  was  the  son  of  brother  of  

deceased Ram Gopal.  The appellant, therefore, along with  

Rajaram and Shiva Mohan who are sons of deceased Parag and  

Shivabalak who is son of deceased Beni Prasad would take  

the interest of deceased Ram Gopal simultaneously in equal  

shares i.e. each would get 1/4th share in the holding of  

deceased Ram Gopal.  Thus, there is no manner of doubt

12 that the prescribed authority as well as the appellate  

authority  had  committed  error  in  holding  that  the  

appellant  had inherited  1/3rd share from  the properties  

left by Mr. Ram Gopal.  Obviously, the calculation of the  

surplus  land  made  on  the  basis  that  the  appellant  had  

ininherited  1/3rd share  in  the  holding  of  deceased  Ram  

Gopal, will have to be regarded as contrary to the express  

provisions  of  Section  171  of  the  Act  of  1950  and  the  

matter  will  have  to  be  remitted  to  the  prescribed  

authority for calculation of the surplus land held by the  

appellant on the basis that the appellant had got 1/4th  

share in the holding of deceased Ram Gopal.

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  the  appeal  partly  

succeeds.  The judgment dated October 11, 2002 rendered by  

the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in  

Civil  Miscellaneous  Writ  Petition  No.  23709  of  1995,

13 confirming  the  judgment  dated  28.2.1995  passed  by  

Additional  Collector (Finance)/Prescribed  Officer, Banda  

in Case No. 1 of 1992 concluding that the appellant holds  

land  admeasuring  16.95  acres  in  excess  of  the  ceiling  

limit prescribed, as well as the judgment dated 14.8.1995  

passed by Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 23 of year  

1994-95  upholding  the  judgment  of  the  prescribed  

authority, is hereby set aside.  It is hereby declared  

that the appellant had inherited 1/4th share in the holding  

of deceased Ram Gopal.  The prescribed authority, Banda,  

is hereby directed to redetermine the extent of surplus  

land held by the appellant on the footing that the 1/4th  

share in the holding of deceased Ram Gopal had devolved  

upon the appellant.  The redetermination of the excess  

land  held  by  the  appellant  shall  be  made  within  four  

months from the date of the receipt of the writ from this

14 Court.   

There shall be no order as to costs.   

.................J (J.M. PANCHAL)

.................J (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New Delhi; October 19, 2010.

15 ITEM NO.104               COURT NO.13             SECTION XI

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                     CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8166 OF 2003

CHHEDI LAL                                        Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

(With office report)

Date: 19/10/2010  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Appellant(s)     Mr. A.S. Pundir,Adv.

For Respondent(s)    Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.

16  Mr. S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv.  Mr. Manoj K. Dwivedi,Adv.  Ms. Vandana Mishra,Adv.

                    Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

In terms of the reportable signed judgment,the appeal  

partly  succeeds.   The  judgment  dated  October  11,  2002  

rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of  

Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709  

of 1995, confirming the judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed by  

Additional  Collector  (Finance)/Prescribed  Officer,  Banda  

in Case No. 1 of 1992 concluding that the appellant holds  

land  admeasuring  16.95  acres  in  excess  of  the  ceiling  

limit prescribed, as well as the judgment dated 14.8.1995  

passed by Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 23 of year  

1994-95  upholding  the  judgment  of  the  prescribed  

authority, is hereby set aside.  It is hereby declared  

that the appellant had inherited 1/4th share in the holding

17 of deceased Ram Gopal.  The prescribed authority, Banda,  

is hereby directed to redetermine the extent of surplus  

land held by the appellant on the footing that the 1/4th  

share in the holding of deceased Ram Gopal had devolved  

upon the appellant.  The redetermination of the excess  

land  held  by  the  appellant  shall  be  made  within  four  

months from the date of the receipt of the writ from this  

Court.   

There shall be no order as to costs..

(V.K. Tiwari) P. A.

(Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master

(Signed order is placed on the file)