Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Rajesh Kumar Misra holding brief of Shri A.K. Misra and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
This petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities whereby the land purchased by the petitioners has been held to be surplus in the hands of one Raghuvendra Kumar Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh, treating it to be the original holding of their father late Tilak Singh.
The petitioners contend that proceedings were never initiated against late Tilak Singh who was recorded as the tenure holder and whose sons were also recorded as co-tenure holders under the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.3.1971.
A notice appears to have been sent to Raghuvendra Kumar Singh under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1960. The said notice was replied by Shri Raghuvendra Kumar Singh whereafter the prescribed authority on 31.3.1975 held that Raghuvendra Kumar Singh has 1/5th share in the holding, therefore, he had no excess or surplus land as such. The notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was dropped, a copy of the said order is on record as annexure 5 to the writ petition.
Twenty years thereafter, a notice has been issued to the petitioners who are the vendees of Raghuvendra Kumar Singh and his brother Ravindra Bahadur Singh. They filed their objections contending that there was no surplus land in the hands of either Raghuvendra Kumar Singh or Ravindra Bahadur Singh and, therefore, their sale deeds are bona fide as such issuance of the notice is without jurisdiction. The prescribed authority framed seven issues and came to conclusion that Raghuvendra Kumar Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh were minors on the appointed date that is 8.6.1973 and, therefore, the sale deeds which have been obtained by the petitioners thereafter are invalid.
It has further been held that the transactions are after 24th January, 1971, therefore, Tilak Singh being the original tenure holder, the land was surplus in his hands.
An appeal was filed which has been dismissed affirming the order of the prescribed authority.
The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition and this Court passed an interim order on 07.3.2006 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the area covered under their sale deeds.
The State has filed a counter affidavit through Shri P.C. Dixit Tehsildar Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the original tenure holder was Tilak Singh and the recording of the names of his sons as co-tenure holders was manipulated with a view to avoid ceiling proceedings. The counter affidavit further says that the order dated 31.3.1975 is not final in view of the provisions of Section 38-B of the 1960 Act and it would be ineffective.
The petitioners have also taken a stand in paragraph 25 that there was evidence to indicate that the sons of Tilak Singh were not minors on the appointed date and for that the driving licence and passport of Raghuvendra Kumar Singh has been filed indicating his date of birth as 22.9.1934 and that of Ravindra Bahadur Singh in his High School certificate as 03.3.1942.
To this the counter affidavit in paragraph 18 does not deny this evidence and to the contrary it states that the notices could not be served on Tilak Singh as he had died prior to initiation of the ceiling proceedings against the petitioners. It is for this reason that the notices were sent to be served on his heirs but could not be served as the vendors of the petitioners had sold the land and left the place. Consequently, the notices were served on the petitioners. This evidence was therefore not available to the Prescribed Authority.
The sum and substance of the stand taken in counter affidavit is that it was the land of Tilak Singh which has been sold and purchased by the petitioners after the appointed date that too even by his sons who were minors and as such the transactions do not enure any benefit to the petitioners as their sale deeds are void keeping in view the provisions of sub-Section(8) of Section 5 of the 1960 Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the prescribed authority and the appellate authority both have proceeded on erroneous assumptions of fact. There was no evidence before either the prescribed authority or the appellate authority to presume that Raghuvendra Kumar Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh were minors. There is no material in the counter affidavit also to that effect. The petitioners have come up with positive material with regard to the date of birth of Raghuvendra Kumar Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh as indicated herein above. There being no denial, the date of birth mentioned in the said documents, which are public documents cannot be disbelieved as they have probative value under the Indian Evidence Act. In such a situation, the authorities have proceeded to pass a decision on the basis of no evidence as such the impugned orders are perverse being based on surmises and conjectures.
Coming to the issue of the names of the vendors of the petitioners being entered into revenue records as co-tenure holders, it is not disputed that the names came to be entered as co-tenure holders under the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31st March, 1971. This proceeding had been initiated prior to 24th January, 1971 and therefore, it was a declaration of rights as was existing on the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. The vendors of the petitioners were tenure holders in their own right as on 24.1.1971 and, therefore, subsequent thereto they had every right to dispose of the land and it was wrongly treated to be the exclusive holding of Tilak Singh. This is further substantiated by the order dated 31.3.1975 passed by the prescribed authority in favour of Raghuvendra Kumar Singh. It is not disputed that the said order dated 31.3.1975 was never challenged by the State either in appeal or any further. In the circumstances, the doctrine of finality has to be pressed into service insofar as the claim of the vendors of the petitioners are concerned. The provisions of Section 38-B, therefore, would not be attracted inasmuch as the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners was on the basis of wrong assumptions. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
Accordingly, the orders dated 19.1.2000 and 23.9.2005 are set aside. Petition allowed.
Order Date :- 20.3.2012 faraz