PETITIONER:
SHRI RAGHUBIR SINGH & ORS .
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 2058 JT 1996 (5) 240
1996 SCALE (4)169
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
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
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
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.