http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/10/1998

BENCH: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, S. RAJENDRA BABU.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.SAGHIR AHNAD, J Respondent No.  4,  Mahant  Narendra  Das,  was  the tenure-holder of  considerable agricultural land.  A notice, under Section 10(2) of U.P.  Imposition of Ceiling  on  Land Holdings  Act,  1960  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) was issued to him proposing certain area to be  declared  as surplus.   The  notice  was served upon the tenure-holder on 6th  of  February,  1974  but  the  tenure-holder,   namely, respondent No.      4,   did   not   file   any   objection. Consequently, the statement made in the notice was confirmed and about 13  bighas  7  biswas  2  biswansis  of  land  was declared  as  surplus by judgment and order dated 02.03.1974 passed by  the  Prescribed  Authority.    While  the  appeal against this judgment was pending before the District judge, the Act was  amended  by  U.P.    Ordinance No.  31 of 1975, which was subsequently replaced by U.P.   Act  No.    20  of 1976,  as a consequence of which the appeal was abated and a fresh notice, under Section 10(2)  of  the  amend  Act,  was issued  to  the  tenure-holder  who filed objections and the Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties, disposed of the case by his judgment dated 30th Aril, 1976.  This  order was  challenged  in  appeal  by  the tenure-holder which was allowed on 25.3.1997 and the surplus area reduce. In  the  meantime,  respondent  No.4,  by  means  of registered  Sale  Deed  date  26th August, 1974, transferred certain land in favour of appellant  No.1  (Rajendra  Singh) and  by  another  Sale  Deed of the same date, certain other plots were transferred in favour of Jogendra Singh,  son  of Shital  Das.  This  Jogendra Singh, in his turn, transferred that land to appellants No.2 and 3, namely, Pritam Singh and Jogendra Singh, sons of Sardar Mansa Singh, by a  registered Sale Deed dated 04.12.1975. The  appellants  who were not the parties before the Prescribed Authority or the Addl. District  Judge,  filed  a review   application   before   the  Addl.  District  Judge, Saharanpur praying that the surplus area may  not  be  taken out  of  the  land  transferred  in  their  favour  but  the application was rejected on 13.01.1978. The appellants  then filed  a Writ Petition in the High Court which was dismissed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

on 14.3.1980. It is in these circumstances that the  present appeal has come to this Court. Learned counsel for  the  appellants  has  contended that  under Section 12-A of the Act, it is open to the State Government not to take surplus land from  out  of  the  land which was the subject matter of transfer and, therefore, the respondents  may  be  directed to take the surplus land from out  of  the  other  land  of  the  tenure-holder,   namely, respondent No.     4,  as  the  latter  still  has,  in  his possession,  considerable  land  which   can   satisfy   the requirements  of the State so far as surplus area determined by the  area  determined  by  the  Prescribed  Authority  is concerned.   This contention was also raised before the High Court but it was accepted. Section 12-A of Act, inter alia, provides  as  under :-         "12-A.  In determining  the  surplus  land         under   Section  11  or  Section  12,  the         Prescribed  Authority  shall  as  far   as         possible  accept  the  choice indicated by         the tenure-holder to the  plot  or  plots,         which  he and other members of his family,         if any, would like to retain  as  part  of         the  ceiling  area  applicable  to  him or         indicated by him in  his  statement  under         Section 9 or in any subsequent proceedings         :         Provided that-         (a)................................         (b)................................         (c)................................         (d)   Where  any  person  holds  land   in               excess of the ceiling area including               land  which  is  the  subject of any               transfer or partition referred to in               sub-section (6) or  sub-section  (7)               of   Section  5,  the  surplus  land               determined   shall,   as   far    as               possible,  be  land  other than land               which  is  the   subject   of   such               transfer  or  partition,  and if the               surplus land includes  any  land  or               partition, the transfer or partition               shall,  in  so  far as it relates to               the land included in the  always  to               have been void, and-         (i)   it  shall  be open to the transferee               to claim refund of the proportionate               amount  of  consideration,  if  any,               advance  by  him  to the transferor,               and such amount shall be charged  on               the amount payable to the transferor               under  Section  17  and  also on any               within the ceiling area, which shall               be liable to be sold in satisfaction               of   the   charge,   notwithstanding               anything contained in Section 153 of               the    Uttar    Pradesh    Zamindari               Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950;         (ii)  .................................. The words "as far as possible" have been used in the main Section as also in Clause (d) of the  Proviso.    These words are  not prohibitory in nature.  They rather connote a discretion  vested  in  the  Prescribed  Authority  who  can exercise  that discretion at the time of carving the surplus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

area from of the total holding of a person. Section 5(1) provides that a tenure-holder shall not be  entitled  to  hold  in  the  aggregate  throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling  area  applicable  to him. Section 9 provides that the Prescribed Authority  shall,  by general notice, published in the official Gazette, call upon every  tenure-holder  holding  land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, to submit a statement in respect  of all  his  holdings  wherein he shall also indicate the plots which he would like to retain as part of  his  Section  12-A and  it  is provided that the Prescribed Authority shall, as far  as  possible,  accept  the  choice  indicated  by   the tenure-holder  as to the plots which he would like to retain as part of his ceiling area.  It is at this stage, that  the description can be exercised by the Prescribed Authority and he  may  not  take  over  those plots as part of the surplus area.  It is thus "discretion", and not "compulsion",  which constitutes the  core  of  this  statutory provision.  It is obvious that before taking over any area as surplus area  or leaving  any  area as ceiling area of the tenure-holder, the Prescribed Authority shall first take into consideration the choice indicated by the  tenure-holder  and  if  it  is  not possible, to act wholly upon the choice, for which there may be variety of reasons, the Prescribed Authority will proceed in  his  own  way to leave the area determined by him as the ceiling area with the tenure-holder and take over the  other area as surplus area. This provision has to be read in the  light  of  the provisions  contained  in  Sub-sections  (6), (7) and (8) of Section 5 which provide as under :-         "5(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                 immediate  or  deferred  benefit of                 the renure-holder or  other  member                 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;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

               (b)  any  admission,  acknowledgment,                 relinquishment   or   declaration  in                 favour  of  a  person  to  the   like                 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:          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 not          entitled  to,  or  a  large  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 ternure-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.          Explantion-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. The relevant date under the  Act  which  constitutes the  basis  for  determining  the ceiling or surplus area of tenure-holder is 24th of January, 1971.  Whatever  land  was held  by  a  tenure-holder  on  that  date  will  have to be indicated by him in the statement required to  be  submitted under Section 9 of the Act. It is with reference to this date that it  has  been provided  that in determining the ceiling or surplus area of a tenure-holder, the Sale Deed,  if  any,  executed  by  the tenure-holder,   after  24th  of  January,  1971,  shall  be ignored.  Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 5,  however,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

carves  out  an  exception  in favour of transfers which are proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed  Authority,  to have  been  in good faith and for adequate consideration and not  for  any  immediate  or   deferred   benefit   of   the tenure-holder or  other members of his family.  It is on the basis of this provision that it is contended by the  learned counsel  for  the  appellants  that since the Sale Deeds, in question,  were  executed  in  their  favour  for   valuable consideration  and  they  had not obtained the land "benami" nor were they holding the land for any immediate or deferred benefit to the tenure-holder, they are entitled to hold  the land covered by the said Sale Deeds in their own independent rights  and,  therefore,  the  said land could not have been treated as the land  of  tenure-holder,  namely,  respondent No.4,  for  purposes  of  determining his ceiling or surplus area.  This contention is wholly  without  substance.    The proviso cannot  be  read  in  isolation.   It has to be read along with Sub-section (8) of Section 5  which  provides  as under :-         "(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  purpose  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) Section 11 or under sub-section (1) of         Section 12, or as the case may  be,  under         Section 13." The  prohibition  contained in this sub-section that during the pendency of  proceedings  under  the  Act,  there cannot be  any  transfer,  is absolute.  This prohibition is contained in the first part of sub-section (8) while in  the second  part, the consequence thereof is indicated providing that every transfer, made in contravention of this provision shall be void.  The Explanation appended to this Sub-section creates a legal fiction by saying that the  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 they shall be deemed to have concluded when an order is made under  Sub-section  (1) of  Section  11  by the Prescribed Authority in a case where either the statement submitted by the  tenure-holder,  under Section  9,  is  accepted by the Prescribed Authority or the statement  prepared  by  the  Prescribed  Authority,   under Section 10,  is not disputed by the tenure-holder.  But in a case where these statements are contested,  the  proceedings shall  be  deemed to have concluded when an order is made by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12(1)  of  the  Act,. If,  however,  an appeal has been filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded on the disposal of the appeal  under  Section 13 of the Act. Thus, the  Sale  Deeds  executed  by  tenure-holders after  24th  January,  1971,  have  been classified into two distinct categories :    (1)  Sale  Deeds  executed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

tenure-holder   after   24th  January,  11971,  without  the proceedings under the Act for determination of  the  ceiling sand  surplus  area  having been commenced or being pending. Proviso (b)  to  Sub-section  (6)  of  Section  5  would  be applicable  to  such a Sale Deed and it would be open to the Prescribed Authority to look into the genuineness of such  a sale Deed in the light of the factors indicated therein; and (ii)  Sale  Deeds  executed  by the tenure-holder after 24th January, 1971, but during the pendency  of  the  proceedings for determination  of  the ceiling and surplus area.  Such a Sale Deed would be  void  in  view  of  Sub-section  (8)  of Section 5.   It will not be open to the Prescribed Authority to hold any enquiry in respect of such a Sale Deed which has to be treated as void from its inception. The prohibition  on  transfer  of  land  during  the pendency  of the proceedings was introduced in the principal Act by U.P.  Act No.  20 of 1976 with  retrospective  effect from 10.10.1975, that is, with effect from the date on which U.P.  Ordinance No.      31   of  1975  was  issued.    This prohibition was introduced with the object  of  facilitating an  early  disposal  of the proceedings for determination of surplus land as also for preventing the  tenure-holder  from disturbing  the status-quo of his holding as existing on the date of Notification under Section 9 of the  Act  by  making transfers of land in favour of other persons which obviously would  have  the  effect  of  complicating  the  process  of determination of surplus land. Since,  in  the  instant  case, a notice had already been issued under Section 9 of the Act and  the  proceedings for  germination  of  ceiling  and surplus area were pending before  the  Prescribed  Authority,  the  Sale   Deeds,   in question,  which  were  executed on 26.8.1974 and 04.12.1975 respectively were obviously void being hit by the  provision contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 5. The  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants that the surplus area may not be taken out of the land  covered  by  the  Sale  Deeds  cannot,  therefore,  be accepted, as it would mean that the Sale Deeds, though void, are   still  being  given  effect  to  indirectly  which  is positively impermissible.  The land covered by the aforesaid Sale Deeds shall, therefore, be treated to be  part  of  the land  held  by  respondent  No.4  and it would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority  to  take or  carve  out  the surplus area from any land of respondent No.  4, notwithstanding that any portion of  that  land  was covered  by  Sale  Deeds allegedly executed in favour of the appellants. No other point was argued. The appeal has no  merits and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.