- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Bareilly dated 27.10.1994 whereby the appeal filed by the State under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1960) against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.3.1982 has been allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside.
(2.) Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: (i) Proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 were initiated against one Pooram Singh, the recorded tenure holder. Objections were filed to the notice by Pooran Singh on 31.8.1974 and it was stated that he had transferred certain land through four sale deeds, three of the same date i.e. 24.5.1971 and the fourth dated 28.6.1971. These sale transactions according to Pooran Singh were bona fide, therefore, the land covered by the said sale-deed was liable to be excluded from his total land holding. The objections so raised by Pooran Singh were repelled by the Prescribed Authority and the land covered by the sale-deeds was directed to be included in the land holding as the bona fides of sale could not be established. Accordingly 91 Bigha 4 Biswa and 4 Biswansi of land was declared as surplus. (ii) Not being satisfied with the order, Pooran Singh filed an Appeal No. 2310 of 1973. In the appeal also he raised the same issues. The Appellate Court also rejected the contentions so raised and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.10.1974. Not being satisfied, he filed writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed under an order dated 18.4.1978. Meaning thereby that so far as Pooran Singh is concerned i.e. the recorded tenure holder, his plea that the transfers effected by sale-deeds dated 24.5.1971 and dated 28.6.1971 were held to be not bona fide transfer and the land so transferred had to be treated as part and parcel of the holdings of Pooran Singh. (iii) At this stage of the proceedings the present Petitioners, who claim to be the purchaser of the land in dispute and who are none other than the sons and the grandsons etc. of Pooran Singh, filed an application for recall of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 28.12.1974, referred to above. (iv) It is not necessary for the Court to enter into the details of the proceedings taken thereafter. Suffice is to record that under an order of the Civil Judge dated 10.11.1978, it was directed that the objectors were entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing to establish that the sale transactions were bona fide and the land covered by the said sale-deed be excluded from the holdings of Pooran Singh. It was specifically provided that the Prescribed Authority would re-determine the issue after affording opportunity to the parties concerned. (v) In terms of the order of the Civil Judge, the proceedings were reopened and the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.3.1982 held that the land covered by the sale deeds dated 24.05.1971 and dated 28.6.1971 were bona fide transactions and that the land so transferred by Pooran Singh had to be executed from his tenure holding.
(3.) Not being satisfied with the order so passed the State of U.P. preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority under the impugned order has held that the finding with regard to the bona fide of the sale transactions as were recorded in proceedings against Pooran Singh were binding upon the present Petitioners inasmuch as they were the purchasers and had stepped into the shoes of the recorded tenure holder against whom the proceedings had become final upto the Hon'ble High Court. The Appellate Authority however also examined the merits of the case pleaded by the Petitioners for establishing the bona fide of the sale transactions and held against the objectors.;