Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAYA DEVI & OTHERS versus ADL. COMMISSIONER & ANOTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijaya Devi & Others v. Adl. Commissioner & Anothers - WRIT - C No. 3991 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 3239 (26 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3991 of 1987

Vijaya Devi and others Versus Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division and Another.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners are transferees from original tenure holder Chabeshwar Nath through sale deed dated 27.10.1970 i.e before 24.1.1971 (cut off date under U.P Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act). In ceiling proceedings against legal representatives of Chabeshwar Nath after his death, it was contended on behalf of heirs of Chabeshwar Nath that certain sale deeds were executed by Chabeshwar Nath prior to 24.1.1971 hence land covered by the said sale deeds should not be treated to be their land. The sale deeds in question through which petitioners purchased the land was also mentioned therein by heirs of Chabeshwar Nath. Prescribed Authority held that most of the sale deeds were Benami. The said decision was upheld by the appellate court in the appeal filed by heirs of Chabeshwar Nath as well as in writ petition filed by them (Writ Petition No. 780 of 1977, Prabha Nath Vs. A.D.J Allahabad decided on 21.8.1978). Thereafter petitioners filed objections before the prescribed authority stating therein that they were transferees from Chabeshwar Nath and their names had also been mutated in the revenue records and this fact was mentioned in C.L.H Form 3 Ka, Kha, Ga also. Mutation was effected immediately after the execution of the sale deed dated 27.10.1970. Notice under Ceiling Act to the heirs of Chabeshwar Nath was issued much later.

Prescribed Authority, Bara Allahabad through order dated 14.2.1985 passed in the case of State Vs. Chabeshwar Nath held that the matter had already been decided earlier hence it could not be reopened. Against the said order revenue Appeal No. 129/138 of 1986 was filed. Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad through order dated 8.9.1986 dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.

It is correct that in the earlier proceedings it was decided that sale deeds were not genuine but benami, however petitioners were not parties in the said proceedings hence the said orders even though confirmed by this court in writ petition is not binding upon the petitioners. It was necessary to hear petitioners before deciding the said question. The point stands concluded by full bench authority of this court reported in Shantanu Kumar Vs. State of U.P 1979 ALJ 432. In the said authority, it was held that notice under Rue 8 was necessary to be issued to the transferees whose names had been mutated in the revenue records. It was further held that decision in respect of transfer deed   given in ceiling proceedings against original tenure holder was not binding upon the transferees in case they were not parties.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set-aside. Matter is remanded to the prescribed Authority to decide the question as to whether the sale deed dated 27.10.1970 was sham, fictitious and in the nature of benami or not. In this regard, it is also important to note that even if the sale deed had been executed after 24.1.1971 and even if prescribed authority had held that sale deed was not bonafide still transferees were entitled to the benefit of section 12-A (d) of Ceiling Act. Petitioners are directed to file their objections before the prescribed authority along with certified copy of this judgement and evidence on 5.4.2007. Matter must be decided thereafter within three months.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly

Waqar

26 .2.2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.