- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Mabender Kaur, widow of Wing Commander Late Pritam Singh, resident of village Qumsani, district Naini Tal, against the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Naini Tal, allowing Ceiling Appeal No. 111 of 1981 Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. and Ceiling Appeal No. 112 of 1981 Dalvinder Singh v. Smt. Mahender Kaur and Anr..
(2.) The facts of the present writ petition are these : A notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was served on the Petitioner Smt. Mahender Kaur proposing to deolare certain area of land with her as surplus. Smt. Mahender Kaur sold 40 Bighas of plot No. 334-M, situate in village Gumsani and 40 Bighas of plot No. 6-M, situate in village Bichnuri through a registered sale deed dated January 1, 1974, in favour of one Ourdev Singh, son of Piara Singh, resident of village Gumsani for a total consideration of Rs. 37,500/- She also sold 64 Bighas of the aforesaid plot No. 334-M, through a registered sale deed dated May 10, 1974, in favour of Raghubir Singh, Jasvir Singh and Rajpal Singh for Rs. 30,000/-. Apart from these two sale deeds of village gumasni, she also executed a third sale deed dated May 10, 1974, in respect of 64 Bighas of plot No. 6M, situate in village Bichpuri in favour of Dalvinder Singh for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. Smt. Mahinder Kaur filed objections contending that the statement given Jo CLH from 3 of Part C was incorrect as she had transferred major part of her holding through the aforesaid sale deeds. Gurdev Singh, Raghubir Singh, Jasvir Singh, Rajpal Singh, and Dalvinder Singh, who were the purchasers, also filed objections before the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) Holding that the sale deeds executed in favour of the aforesaid persons were invalid, the Prescribed Authority ignored the same and held by the judgment dated 30th June, 1976, that the Petitioner had 246 Bighas 4 Biswas in terms of unirrigated land and 12 Biswas Usar land as surplus In her holding Against the aforesaid judgment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal, which was appeal No. 870 of 1976. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 also filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was appeal No. 825 of 1976. The third appeal No. 782 of 1976 had been preferred by Gurdev Singh All the three appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25th March, 1977, by the Third Additional District Judge, Naini Tal. While dealing with the transfer deeds made in favour of Respondents 3 to 6 and also in favour of Gurdev Singh, the learned Additional District Judge held them to be void in view of Section 5(8) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge while accepting the choice of the Petitioner observed that the land transferred through the aforesaid void sale deeds could not be considered under Section 12-A(d) of the Act.;