Abdul Rauf Vs State of U.P.through Collector Balrampur and Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22709

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000027 of 2000

¶4

Petitioner :- Abdul Rauf

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Balrampur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.S.Misra,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Misra,Q.M.Haque Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Waris Farooqui

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Kasif Rafi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents.

¶8

2. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain facts leading upto the instant petition are being noticed, first.

¶9

3. The property in question belonged to one Shri Peshkar Singh, resident of Village Basantpur, Pargana and Tehsil- Tulsipur, District- Balrampur. The proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was initiated against the erstwhile tenure holder, Shri Peshkar Singh. By means of order dated 05.05.1988, the land of Shri Peshkar Singh was declared surplus. This came to be challenged by Shri Peshkar Singh by filing an appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter Shri Peshkar Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court bearing No. 186 (Ceiling) of 1990. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by means of order dated 22.12.95. The High Court while dismissing the said writ petition clearly noticed that insofar as the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are concerned, it did not suffer from any illegality. However, liberty was granted to the said

¶10

petitioner (Shri Peshkar Singh) to offer his option for which land to be taken by the Government and thereafter, the matter be decided. It is in furtherance thereof that Shri Peshkar Singh submitted his option which was accepted.

¶11

4. By means of sale deed dated 07.09.1991, the present petitioners claimed rights on the property bearing Plot No. 1015 measuring 3.20 acres situated at Village Basantpur. It is at this stage that the petitioners claimed that since they were bonafide purchasers of the disputed plot in question by means of sale deed dated 07.09.1991, hence the option which was given by the predecessor namely, Shri Peshkar Singh, was not appropriate as it included the land which was sold to the present petitioners. Hence, the petitioners be granted the benefit of Section 12(2)(d) of the Act of 1960. However, the aforesaid submissions did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority who by means of order dated 18.12.1997 dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioners. Against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal which also came to dismissed by means of order dated 29.01.2000. Being aggrieved, the petitioners further escalated the matter before this Court by means of the instant petition challenging the order dated 18.12.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court by means of order dated 29.01.2000. The petitioners also challenged the order dated 08.09.1998, by which the erstwhile tenure holder namely, Shri Peshkar Singh had given his option in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court dated 22.12.1995 and which was accepted.

¶12

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were the bonafide purchasers and they were not aware of the land ceiling proceedings. It is further sought to be argued that even though

¶13

some land was declared as surplus, but once the High Court vide order to 22.12.1995 had directed the Prescribed Authority to consider the option given by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, hence after taking note of the aforesaid option given by Shri Peshkar Singh, the petitioners had purchased the land which was left out of the ceiling proceedings and, therefore, this aspect has neither been considered by the Prescribed Authority nor by the Appellate Authority.

¶14

6. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Santosh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others vide Writ-C No. 23904 of 2012 decided on 30.5.2019 and State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath and others vide Writ-C No. 3001168 of 1980 decided on 04.04.2023. He has also placed reliance on an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Muste Hassan and others vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others 1995 R.D. 186. Similar decisions on the aforesaid points have also been cited inter alia Rajendra Singh (Minor) vs. Additional Commissioner and others 1989 R.D. 449 and Hukum Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 1979 ALL.L.J. 646.

¶15

7. Thus, it is urged that in the aforesaid backdrop where the petitioners’ land was not covered by the ceiling proceedings, could the sale deed not be held to be void apart from the fact that even if at all it fell within the surplus land, then in terms of the option as well as the provisions contained under Section 12(2)(d) of the Act of 1960, the petitioners being the transferee must be given the benefit and the land other than the land purchased by the petitioners must be taken into consideration for ceiling. Accordingly, the petition deserve to be allowed.

¶16

8. Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-

¶17

respondents has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that first and foremost, the land of Shri Peshkar Singh was declared surplus on 05.05.1988. Against the said order, the erstwhile tenure holder had assailed the matter by filing an appeal and thereafter put up the matter before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 186 (Ceiling) of 1995. Insofar as the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority are concerned, the same was not interfered with by the High Court and thus, the merits of the proceedings were upheld. However, liberty was granted to Shri Peshkar Singh that he could submit his option regarding the land he wanted to surrender under the ceiling proceedings and once that option was exercised by Shri Peshkar Singh and was acted upon and the said land came in the hand of the State, in such circumstances, the petitioner who is none other but a transferee in interest and that too during the proceedings and he did not raise any objection at any point of time, cannot be permitted to go through the proceedings once again which otherwise had attained finality especially when neither the erstwhile tenure holder namely, Shri Peshkar Singh nor his legal heirs who have been impleaded as private respondent Nos. 4 to 7, had raised any such objection and therefore, it cannot be permitted that the petitioner who is none other but an assignee of the erstwhile tenure holder can get relief to contest the proceedings which otherwise had attained finality and thus, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶18

9. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶19

10. Certain facts which are not disputed are, that the land in question belonged to Shri Peshkar Singh and his land was declared surplus on 05.05.1988. It is also not disputed that his appeal had been dismissed and the said orders had gained

¶20

acceptance and finality in terms of the order passed by the High Court dated 22.12.1995. From perusal of the order passed by the High Court which has been brought on record by the petitioners along with their application bearing C.M. Application No. 40526 of 2016, it would indicate that the High Court had merely given the petitioner the right to submit his option in terms of Section 12(2)(d) of the Act, 1960 and the same was to be considered by the Prescribed Authority.

¶21

11. It is also not disputed that after the order was passed by the High Court, Shri Peshkar Singh had died and his children who are the private respondents herein No. 4 to 7, had raised their objections and the option which was taken note of by the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of the directions given by the High Court dated 22.12.1995 and thereafter vide order dated 18.12.1997, the Prescribed Authority considered the option and declared the land measuring 6.072 acres on the north side of Plot No.1015 situated in Village- Basantpur, Pargana and Tehsil- Tulsipur. This order has been put to challenge by the petitioners apart from the order which was passed at the behest of the petitioners who had filed his objections regarding the fact that the option which was given by the erstwhile tenure holder, is in respect of part of land which was sold by him to the present petitioners on 07.09.1995.

¶22

12. In the aforesaid backdrop of admitted facts, this Court finds that insofar as the contention of the petitioners is concerned, that cannot be appreciated for the reason that the sale deed came to be executed on 07.09.1991, while the proceedings were still pending before the ceiling authority including the High Court which culminated by means of order dated 22.12.1995. The petitioner had purchased the property in the year 1991 as stated by him, then there can only be two situations:- (i) either the original tenure holder may continue to contest the

¶23

proceedings by himself, or impleading the successor/assignee i.e., the petitioner; (ii) or the other situation that may arise is that the petitioner herein may seek his impleadment in the proceedings as an assignee of the petitioner and thereafter continue the proceedings in his own name and for his own interest. However, what this Court finds is that no such second option was exercised by the petitioner.

¶24

13. In this light, where the proceedings had already attained finality at the behest of the original tenure holder namely, Shri Peshkar Singh, now thereafter raising the same issue at the behest of the petitioner who is none other but an assignee/transferee of Shri Peshkar Singh cannot raise such issue. The action of the present petitioner is also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. In case if the submission forwarded by the counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it would give rise to a proposition which would result in absurdity as no proceedings can then ever attain finality. The present petitioner being bound by the actions of his predecessor cannot claim or cry foul that they had not been given any opportunity. The decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioners though may lay down the proposition which is not in dispute, but in none of those cases, it would be found that the petitioner/the erstwhile tenure holder had first concluded the proceedings and let it attain finality and thereafter the same has been initiated at the behest of the successor and it was so permitted by the Court. Thus, the facts of those cases are completely different, therefore, the propositions laid down in the aforesaid judgements do not come to the rescue of the present petitioner.

¶25

14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority or the Appellant Authority rejecting the objections which is nothing but a new round of litigation initiated at the behest of the transferee in

¶26

interest of Shri Peshkar Singh, could have been appreciated and as such, the said orders cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law.

¶27

15. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed . Costs are made easy.

¶28

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Shravan

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abdul Rauf v. State of U.P.through Collector Balrampur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rauf v. State of U.P.through Collector Balrampur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waqf Subedar Dr. Naseeruddin Khan Bahadur through Mutawalli Aftab Ahmad Khan vs Nagar Panchayat Satrikh Thru. Executive Officer and Others

M/S Jindal Restaurants Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Shri Ujjwal Gupta vs Debts Recovery Tribunal 600/1 Thru. Presiding Officer Lko. and 5 Others

Dinesh Chandra Verma Vs Sri Vinod Singh Rawat, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law and Justice, Lko. and Others

Tulsi Seva Sansthan, Jaunpur Thr. Authorised Signatory, Sri Manish Kumar Chaurasia and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education, Lko and Others

Majid Husain Vs Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow through Its Chairman and 4 Others

Smt. Shivani Singh Vs Ashwani Kumar Singh