High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhaiya Lal v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 802 of 1985  RD-AH 4218 (13 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.802 of 1985
Bhaiya Lal vs. State of U.P. and others
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against order 8.3.1983 passed by Prescribed Authority and order dated 29.10.1984 passed by District Judge, Banda dismissing Revenue appeal no.29 of 1983 which was directed against order of the Prescribed authority dated 8.3.1983. The case before the Prescribed Authority was registered as case no.565 - State of U.P. vs. Bhaiya Lal and was decided on 8.3.1983 by Prescribed Authority/Deputy Collector (Revenue), Banda. 191 Bighas and 5 Biswas of irrigated land was declared as surplus land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the following points (which were also argued before the lower appellate court).
The first point is that, in consolidation proceedings some land earlier recorded in the name of the petitioner was recorded in the name of other persons. This was done after 8.6.1973, the crucial date under U.P.Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. Moreover names of the other nine persons were recorded on the basis of compromise and the appellate court rightly ignored the said compromise and order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. I do not find any error in the said finding.
The second point is regarding reduction of area in consolidation proceedings due to different valuation of plots already held by the petitioner and plots allotted in consolidation to him. In this regard Prescribed authority had accepted the contention of the petitioner and granted benefit of 2.75 acres of land as area reduced in consolidation.
The third point was regarding family partition stated to have taken place on 31.3.1970. This partition was on plain paper and no mutation on the basis of the said partition was got affected before 24.1.1971. Normally partition of agricultural land can take place through proceedings under Section 176 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Moreover until 24.1.1971 no mutation in respect of alleged partition had taken place hence appellate court rightly ignored the said partition. No partition after 24.1.1971 is to be recognized for ceiling purposes by virtue of Section 5(7) of the Act. I do not find any error in the said finding also.
The fourth point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a decree was passed on 25.4.1960 declaring 134 bighas agricultural land of Jagdambika son of the petitioner tenure holder as that of Sidha Gopal who was recorded co-tenure holder. The said decree was ex-parte and revenue records were not got corrected in accordance with the said decree. Moreover the said land was sold by petitioner as he inherited the same after the death of his uncle Sidha Gopal.
The fifth point argued is regarding some sale deeds. Even though the appellate court in its judgment mentioned that:
"Even those sale deeds which were allegedly executed before 24.1.1971 were not executed in good faith and bonafide and for adequate consideration and were executed in favour of the blood relations of the tenure holder."
however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that any sale deed was executed before 24.1.1971. Learned standing counsel states that four sale deeds were executed on 17.1.1972. The area sold through the said sale deeds was about 207 bighas and the sale deeds were either in favour of Sidhagopal grand son or daughter in law. In my opinion such sale deeds were bound to be ignored and could not be held to be bonafide and for adequate consideration in terms of Section 5(6) of the Act. Even the sale consideration shown was highly inadequate i.e. About Rs.300/- per bigha (total 207 bighas land sold for Rs.55,000/- averaging Rs. 265.70 per bigha).
The sixth point argued was regarding Sir Khud Khasht land. In this regard some relief had already been granted to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority.
The last point argued is regarding character of the land being irrigated or un-irrigated. Appellate court held that Prescribed Authority had given maximum benefit under law to the petitioner in that regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Lekhpal admitted that partition had taken place in the family of the petitioner. Such type of oral statement of Lekhpal has got no value. As held by me earlier, firstly, partition should have taken place through suit under Section 176 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and secondly even if it is assumed that partition infact did take place, it was bound to be ignored as name of different persons in consequence of partition were not got recorded in the revenue record before the crucial date i.e. 24.1.1971. The only evidence of partition filed before the Prescribed Authority by the petitioner was a simple paper which was not even stamped. On the basis of the said alleged partition mutation proceedings under Section 34 U.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated after the crucial dates i.e. 24.1.1971 and 8.8.1973. Through mutation proceedings rights cannot be determined.
I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Court.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.