- (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. The opposite party No. 3 in the instant petition is Babu Lal and a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to him along with a copy of the statement, which was prepared in his case under Section 10(1). Objections were filed and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-7-1975, a true copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the said tenure-holder, Babu Lal and the same was allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 30-9-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition. Now the State has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel. In opposition, Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the said tenure-holder Babu Lal, had made his submissions.
(3.) There is only one point involved in this petition. Three agreements of sale were made before 24-1-1971 between the said tenure-holder and certain persons. To be more precise, the agreement of sale dated 5-3-1970 was entered into between the said tenure-holder and one Babu Lal son of Ram Das, the second agreement of sale dated 8-3-1970 was made between the said tenure-holder and one Brij Kishore, and the third-agreement to sell dated 30-3-1970 was made between the said tenure holder and two persons by names Ram Het and Kali Charan. In pursuance of the said agreements, the transferees concerned paid a part of the sale consideration payable by them in respect of each agreement of sale and the said tenure-holder parted with the possession of the land which was agreed to be sold by him to the transferee concerned. The genuineness of the said agreements has been accepted by the appellate court and it was held that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, the land which were agreed to be sold by the aforesaid three agreements of sale, were excluded from the holding of the said tenure-holder. The total area of such land comes to 73 Bighas 6 biswas or 29 Bighas, 6 biswas, 8 biswansi of irrigated land. The State could not be allowed to question the findings of fact recorded by the appellate court regarding the genuineness of the said agreements of sale and that in pursuance thereof, possession of land agreed to be sold passed to the transferees concerned. However, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the legal inferences drawn by the appellate court below were not sustainable in law and therefore, the appellate courts' aforesaid judgment should be quashed. The following aspects of the matter were emphasised: (1). Under the Ceiling Law what is material is the title to the land and not merely its possession; reliance was placed on the decision of N.D. Ojha, J. in Sheo Chandra Pathak v. State, 1978 AWC 332. (2). The benefit of Section 53A can be claimed by the transferee and not by the transferor. In the instant case, the tenure holder Babu Lal as the transferor sought to take the benefit of Section 53A and the appellate court below acted illegally in allowing such benefit to the said tenure-holder. (3). The provisions contained in Section 53A cannot be invoked against a third party. The said provisions have relevance between the transferor and the transferee but they have no application when the third parties are in the picture. In the instant case, the Ceiling Authorities as a third party, were not affected by Section 53A, which could only be applicable in a dispute between the transferor and the transferee. (4). The aforesaid agreements of sale got frustrated by operation of law and the possession of the transferees became illegal. A reference was made to Sections 5, 7 and 39 of the Ceiling Act and to Sections 2 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the following cases: Data Ram v. Addl. Civil Judge,1979 RevDec 23, Kedar v. District Judge, 1978 RevDec 307, Bhola Ram v. Bhagwati,1978 RevDec 195, Mandique v. Agra I.T. Board, 1966 AIR(SC) 1191, Pearey Lal v. Hari Lal, 1977 AIR(SC) 1226, Bhuthnath Chatterji v. State of Bihar, 1973 AIR(Pat) 247, Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Hari Mohindra Singh, 1968 AIR(SC) 1024, Delhi Motor Co. v. A. Basriakar, 1968 AIR(SC) 794, S.N. Banerji v. Kuchwar Line & Stone Co. Ltd., 1941 AIR(PC) 128, Prabodh Kumar Das v. Dant Mara Tea Co. Ltd., 1940 AIR(PC) 1, Chinna Pillai v. Govind Swami, 1969 AIR(Mad) 191, Kalawati v. C.O. Agra,1968 RevDec 45, J.R.R. Skinner v. R.H. Skinner, 1929 AIR(PC) 269, Laxmi Lal v. State,1964 RevDec 104, Teekam Singh v. Chhattar Pal Singh,1963 RevDec 33, Kashinath Bhaskhar v. Bhaskhar Visheshwar, 1952 AIR(SC) 153, New Delhi Municipal Committee v. H.S. Rikhy, 1956 AIR(P&H) 181, Pearey Lal v. Prithi Singh, 1945 AIR(All) 422, The Authorised Officer v. Nagamatha Ayyar, 1979 AIR(SC) 1487, Sheochandra Pathak v. State or U.P.,1978 AllLJ 408, Buddhan Singh v. Nabi Bux, 1962 AIR(All) 43, Data Ram v. Addl. Civil Judge, 1978 AWC 614, Erma v. Veeru Pama, 1966 AIR(SC) 1879.;