http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH & ORS .

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 2058            JT 1996 (5)   240  1996 SCALE  (4)169

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad  dated September 14, 1984 in which, upon a writ petition, it  set aside  the order  of the  First Additional District Judge, Nainital in a Ceiling Appeal.      The  third   respondent  was   the   tenure-holder   of agricultural land  situated in  Village Gumsani  and Village Bichpuri. She  transferred 64  bighas of the land in Village Gumsani to  appellant Nos.1  to 3  by a registered sale deed dated 10th  May, 1974.  On the same date, she transferred 64 bighas of  the  land  in  Village  Bichpuri  to  the  fourth appellant. In  response to  a notice  under Section 10(2) of the U.P.  Imposition of  Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, [hereinafter referred  to as the ’Act’] the third respondent filed objections.  The appellants  sought to be made parties thereto and were impleaded. The prescribed authority did not accept as  valid the  transfers made by the third respondent in favour  of the appellants, as aforesaid, and appeals were filed from his order. It is enough to state that the appeals were dismissed  all the  way and upon special leave petition filed by  the appellants  before this  Court, the  following order was passed:-      "Upon hearing  counsel,  the  Court      dismissed   the    Special    Leave      Petition. But so far as the surplus      land   to    be   surrendered    is      concerned, the Prescribed Authority      shall  decide   as  to  which  land      should   be    required    to    be      surrendered,  after   hearing   the      tenure holder Smt. Mohinder Kaur as      a  transferee  and  Gurdev  Singh’s      Legal   Representative    and    in      accordance with  the Section  12(A)      of the  imposition  of  ceiling  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Land Holding  Act 1960, as also the      agreement dated  16.1.1974 and  the      sale deed between the tenure holder      Smt. Mohinder Kaur and Gurdev Singh      relating to  the transferee  of the      land."      The third respondent thereupon elected to surrender the land which  had been  transferred by  her to the appellants. The  appellants   objected,  but  the  prescribed  authority overruled the  same. The  Ceiling Appeal was filed which was allowed by the Additional District Judge. Against his order, the third  respondent filed the writ petition upon which the order under appeal was passed.      Learned counsel  for the  appellants drew our attention to the  terms of the order of this Court aforequoted and the provisions of  Section 12-A  of the  said Act.  The relevant provisions, upon which emphasis was laid, read thus:      "S.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 them under the      provisions  of  this  Act,  whether      indicated by  him in  his statement      under   Section   9   or   in   any      subsequent proceedings:      Provided that -           (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 which is the           subject of  such  transfer  or           partition,  the   transfer  or           partition shall,  in so far as           it   relates   to   the   land           included in  the surplus land,           be deemed  to be and 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,           advanced   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  land   restained  by  the           transfer  within  the  ceiling           area, which shall be liable to           be sold in satisfaction of the

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

         charge,        notwithstanding           anything contained  in Section           153  of   the  Uttar   Pradesh           Zamindari Abolition  and  Land           Reforms Act, 1950;           (ii) any part to the partition           (other than  the tenure-holder           in respect of whom the surplus           land  has   been   determined)           whose  land   is  included  in           surplus  land   of  the   said           tenure-holder,    shall     be           entitled to have the partition           re-opened."      Learned counsel submitted that having regard to proviso (d), the  surplus land  in the hands of the third respondent had to  be determined,  excluding therefrom  that land which had been the subject matter of transfer to the appellants.      Reliance was  placed by  the learned  counsel  for  the appellants upon the decision of this Court in Ravindra Singh v. Phool  Singh &  Anr. [(1995)  1 SCC 251. It has been held that a  combined reading  of Section  5(6) and clause (d) of the proviso to Section 12-A shows that -      "any transfer  of land  made  after      24.1.1971 shall be ignored and such      transferred land  shall be included      in the  holding of  the  transferor      except where such transfer is saved      by the  proviso to  sub-section (6)      of Section 5."      This judgment  very correctly,  with respect,  sets out the effect  of Section  12-A and  clause (d) of its proviso. The provisions  thereof apply  to transfers  which have  not been found to be bad in law.      In the  instant case,  as aforestated, the transfers of land by  the third respondent to the appellants were held to be void  and, therefore, there was no transfer in the eye of the law. Learned counsel emphasised that they have been held to be void by reason of the provisions of Section 5(8) which says that no tenure-holder may 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 would be void. It  seems to  us quite irrelevant whether the transfer was held  to be  void under this or any other provision. The fact is  that it  was held  to be  void and  that has become final. Since  there is  no transfer  in the  eye of  the law there is no occasion to apply Section 12-A and clause (d) of the proviso.      The appeal  is accordingly  dismissed. No  order as  to costs.