High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shanker Shukla v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - B No. 4256 of 1985  RD-AH 12274 (18 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4256 of 1985
Shanker Shukla vs. State of U.P and others.
List revised. No one is present on behalf of respondent No.4 Gaon Sabha who is real contesting party. No one also appears on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 who do not appear to have any claim adverse to that of the petitioner.
In respect of some agricultural land a compromise was entered into in between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 Gorakh Pratap, Raj Mati, and Siddatri. Against the order of CO dated 22.09.1983 accepting the said compromise, two restoration applications were filed one by Pradhan, copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition and other by State of U.P copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition. In none of the applications, it was stated that either Gaon Sabha or State had any concern with the property in dispute. The only grievance was that the land in dispute either was or could be subject matter of ceiling proceedings and the order accepting the compromise might affect the ceiling proceeding. Consolidation Officer through order dated 13.2.1984 passed in case No. 13 to 21 /2338 to 2346 Gorakh Vs. Shanker allowed the restoration application and set-aside the order dated 22.9.1983 treating the same to be ex-parte. Against order dated 13.2.1984, petitioners filed revision being revision No. 1185. DDC, Deoria dismissed the revision on 28.1.1985 hence this writ petition.
Revisional court also mentioned that the parties to the compromise were intending to usurp the ceiling property, however, there is no mention in the impugned order that either any ceiling proceeding was going on or that the land had been declared as surplus in any ceiling proceeding. One more reason was given by the revisional court and that was that compromise amounted to transfer, hence it was illegal as it was not done through registered deed of transfer resulting in loss of revenue to the State in the form of stamp duty. The second argument is utterly erroneous. In any case parties are at liberty to compromise the matter. Same principal applies to consolidation proceedings also. No compromise can be set-aside on the ground that it amounts to transfer of the property.
As far as the question of ceiling is concerned, by virtue of explanation I to section 5(6) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 a declaration of a person as a co-tenure holder made after 24.1.1971 in a suit or proceeding is treated to be transfer. Similarly any admission, acknowledgement, relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect made in any deed or instrument or in any other manner after 24.1.1971 amounts to transfer. Under Section 5(6) (b) transfer of land made after 24.1.1971 is to be ignored unless it is proved to be in good faith and for adequate consideration.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set-aside. Order dated 22.9.1983 passed by Consolidation Officer Padrauna is revived and restored.
However, it is clarified that if any ceiling proceedings are initiated or are pending or have been concluded either against the petitioner or respondents 5 to 7 then in the said proceeding the order dated 22.09.1983 shall be ignored in the light of section 5(6) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.