Allowed

Arjun Singh and Others v. State of U.P. through Collector Muzaffar Nagar and Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2018WRIC/24817/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition against orders dispossessing petitioners of land under the Ceiling Act, the High Court quashed the impugned orders. The Court held that a valid Will executed by the father prevented clubbing of property among heirs, thereby invalidating the surplus declaration and protecting the petitioners' possession rights.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the authorities below declaring the land surplus and dispossessing the petitioners are quashed. Interim stay order is continued.

Arjun Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. through Collector… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Judgment reserved on: 18.7.2018 Judgment delivered on: 10.8.2018

¶3

Court No. - 2

¶4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24817 of 2002

¶5

Petitioner :- Arjun Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Collector Muzaffar Nagar & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.K. Rajvanshi,N.C. Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶7

By way of this petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the authorities below namely orders whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be dispossess from plot No. 24M measuring 0.240 hectares of Khewat No.66, during the pendency of this petition the same order was stayed by this Court by the order dated 21.6.2002 which has continued till date. The impugned judgments dated 13.5.2002 and 28.6.2001 passed by respondent no.2 namely The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur, District Saharanpur, and The Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act namely Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Muzaffarnagar. The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is the main Act and the provisions are invoked by the authorities to show that the petitioners are holding more land than that they could possess. The petitioners are the decendant of applicant Kartar Singh whose property decended to Babu Ram, Arjun Singh. Arjun Singh in turn has two children one is Sachin Kumar and again a son named Vipin Kumar who was a

¶8

¶9

minor at the time of these proceedings. Smt. Munni Devi one of the petitioners is also direct decendant of Babu Ram. The authorities clubbed all the properties together and on receipt of notice dated 4.5.1999 petitioner no.1 who died during the pendency of this petition has now been survived by his widow and two children.

¶10

“ That after receiving the aforesaid notice the petitioner No.1 filed an objection on 22.5.199 asserting that his son Sachin Kumar petitioner No.2 is adult and the land recorded in the names of his sons, the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 measuring 5.194 hectares has been inherited by them from their grandfather, who before his death executed a registered Will on 2.5.1995 and of which mutation was also done on 12.1.1996 by Tehsildar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and as such half of the land of the share of petitioner No.2 cannot be clubbed with his area recorded in his name.

¶11

It was further asserted by the petitioner No.1 that his father has executed a Will in favour of his daughter (petitioner No.4), on 19.10.1995 of an area measuring 3.190 hectares and as such this land of his (petitioner's) sister cannot be clubbed in the holding of the petitioner No.1.

¶12

It was further claimed that there was grove planted prior to 1970 in various plots, fully detailed in the impugned judgements, and the tress are fully grown up and now no cultivation is bein done in that area which was claimed to be grove by the petitioner no.1.”

¶13

A will was executed by the father of the first petitioner in favour of Smt. Munni Devi petitioner no.4 much before the proceedings took place.

¶14

“ It was further claimed that there was grove planted prior to 1970 in various plots, fully detailed in the impugned judgements, and the tress are fully grown up and now no cultivation is bein done in that area which was claimed to be grove by the petitioner no.1.”

¶15

The ceiling proceedings being case no.1/1999 show that the petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 were impleaded as parties. The registered Will was also acknowledged by the fact that the competent Court held the validity of the Will. The

¶16

¶17

judgment of the authorities below at Annexure No.1 and 2 are impugned in this petition. The State has filed its reply negative in the contentions of the petitioners. The State's stand is para 4,5 and 8 le lena page -2 .

¶18

“4. That it is stated that the petitioner no.1 Shri Arjun Singh is the only son of Shri Babu Ram. There are two sons to the petitioner no.1, namely, Sachin and Bipin Kumar. Both of them belong to a Joint Hindu Family of which the petitioner no.1 Shri Arjun Singh is the Karta (Guardian). The Marriage of Smt. Munni Devi had been performed by Shri Babu Ram during his life time. However, deliberately, with a due to same from the clutches of the provisions of he Ceiling Act, Shri Babu Ram executed the alleged bills dated 2.2.1995 and 19.10.1995 in favour of his grand-sons, whereas, as a matter of fact, as stated, above, the petitioner no.1 Shri Arjun Singh alongwith his aforesaid two sons are the members of the Joint Hindu Family and also reside jointly and they are also performing the agricultural activities jointly.

¶19

That in accordance with the provisions of law, the possession of an area of 0.240 hectares, which was declared to be surplus, was taken over by the State Government on 5.6.2002 and thereafter its possession was also handed over, as per the rules, to Shri Prem Pal son of Shri Ghaseetoo and Shri Subhash son of Shri Sagua resident of village Kamheda, district Muzaffarnagar, after approval of the patta granted in their favour on 29.6.2002 by the competent authority. The copy of the possession certificate dated 5.6.2002 file the State Government took the possession, as mentioned above, is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.C.A.1. The copy of the relevant Khatauni as well as Khasra are also being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NOS.C.A.2 and C.A.3 in order to show the possession of the aforesaid patta holder and also the entries made in their favour in the same.

¶20

8. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos.4,5,6, and 7 of the writ petition it is stated that after the land in question having been declared as surplus, the position of the same taken over, and the possession of the same has also already been given to the above mentioned persons/patta holders, who have also taken over the possession and their names have also duly been recorded in the Khasra and Khatauni of the relevant years, as mentioned above. It is further submitted that since the

¶21

¶22

evidence adduced by the petitioners were not tenable in the eyes of law, the same were rejected.”

¶23

These contentions have been made by the petitioners by filing the rejoinder affidavit wherein the petitioner has categorically stated that the possession of the surplus land was never taken away no any patta has been made in favour of any other person. No such paper work is there. The petitioners are in actual physical possession over the land. The authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner in their proper perspective and have misconstrued the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act. The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of two hectares of land each even as per the Will which has not been given. Once there is a grove land there would be nothing surplus. The Lekhpal and the C.L.H. have also stated so in their reply.

¶24

Heard Shri Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State.

¶25

The clubbing of the property according to the counsel even if it is permitted, each minor son who becomes major would be entitled to two hectares under Section 5(3) A and Section 3(7) of the Act. The entire land is clubbed and could not have given rise to such a notice. Once the Will has been held to be valid the minor son will ocuppy his own property exclusion of others and therefore the land cannot be clubbed. This submission of the counsel for the petitioner found favour with this Court even in the begining. The Karta Babu Ram has executed the Will and therefore the date of the Will will be very interesting as per the say of the C.S.C., however, while going through the record it is categorically proposed that property of major sons cannot be clubbed

¶26

¶27

together so as to held that the property is surplus. Even if the same is clubbed as per the provisions of Section 5(3) read with Section 5(7) each son will have two hectares to his credit and therefore once a valid Will is there, Section 12(A) of the Act has also not been violated. Once it is held that there were groves which are fully grown up in the hectare of land which was to the exclusion of petitioner no.1 could not have been clubbed to be belonging to the petitioner no.2 who is an adult son and resides separately from the deceased (petitioner no.1) and the cultivation is also done exclusively by him. The land is in favour of the petitioners, the order also is cryptic as it does not take into account the Will dated 19.10.1993. I am unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the State that the benefits of two hectares of land for each cannot be granted, as the same is without any basis.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The orders are quashed. Interim relief is continued.

¶29

Order Date :- 10.8.2018 shiv

Arjun Singh and Others v. State of U.P. through Collector Muzaffar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh and Others v. State of U.P. through Collector Muzaffar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Avtar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyadeo Fair Price Shop Holder Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Geeta Rani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Somya @ Sayma Parveen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Roshani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others