- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed for quashing the impugned order dated 16-12-1982 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Prescribed Authority Kashipur in Ceiling Case. No. 51/ 10 of 1981-82 State Vs. Moti Singh whereby the notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) issue to the petitioner was can celled. The petitioner has further as sailed the order (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12-11-1984 passed by I Additional District Judge, Nainital.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that according to the petitioner, Moti Singh tenure holder held land measuring 25. 10 acres in terms of the irrigated land, situated in village Bhagwantpur, Tehsil Kashipur, district Nainital. Notice under Section 10 (2} of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) was given to Sri Moti Singh propos ing 7. 07 acre land of his holding to be declared as surplus after giving him the benefit of 18. 03 acre irrigated land as ceiling area. Objections were filed against the notice on the ground that the notice be ing against the provisions of the Act is illegal. The land which had already been transferred to respondent nos. 2 to 4 has been wrongly clubbed. The land measuring 5 acres was sold through reg istered sale deed dated 21-2-1980 for a consideration of Rs. 35,0007-, 2. 01 acres land through sale deed dated 4. 7. 1981 for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/-, 2. 50 acres land through sale deed dated 5-1-1982 for consideration of Rs. 22,0007-to Pooran Lal and through sale deed dated 5-1-1982, land measuring 1. 5 acre was sold to Resham Singh for Rs. 12,0007 -. It was also alleged in the objection by Moti Singh that the land measuring 9. 60 acres only is with him. According to Sri Moti Singh, re spondent no. 1, the aforesaid transfers were made in good faith and for ad equate consideration and under an ir revocable instrument not being Benami transaction or for the immediate or de ferred benefit of himself or other mem bers of his family. On the basis of the sale deeds, the purchasers were in pos session on the date of issuance of no tice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and their names were also mutated in the revenue records on the basis of sale deeds.
(3.) THE writ petition has been filed on the ground that the aforesaid trans actions are not bona fide and the find ings of the courts below are perverse. THE learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court has mis-read the evidence adduced by the respondents. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the Prescribed Authority has given a categorical find ing that the aforesaid transactions are bona fide and for adequate considera tion and they are not Benami. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner that the purchasers are not family members of Moti Singh. THEre is clear cut finding of the Prescribed authority that the pur chasers are not relatives of the respond ent no. 1 Moti Singh and it was suffi ciently proved by the witnesses that they are in possession of the land and that the transfers were made bona fide with adequate consideration. THE benefit was given of the provision of Proviso of Sec tion 5 (6) (b) of the Act. After excluding the land sold to the respondents, it has been held that there is no surplus land. THE Prescribed Authority by his order dated 16-12-1982 ultimately dropped the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act issued to respondent no. 1 Moti Singh. Aggrieved, the State preferred appeal before the District Judge Nainital, which was subsequently heard by the 1st Additional District Judge. The appellate court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12- 11-1984. The appel late court after re-appraisal of the evi dence has confirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority and has held that the transactions were made bona fide for adequate consideration and the respond ents are entitled to the benefit of Sec tion 5 (6) (b) of the Act because the transactions were made after 24-1-1971 as mentioned in the said Section. The appellate court has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bijendra Singh Vs. State of U. P. and others AIR, 1981, Supreme Court, Page 636 wherein it has been held that the expression 'good faith' has not been defined in the Ceiling Act. Although the meaning of 'good faith' may vary in the context of different statutes, subjects and situations, honest intent free from taint of fraud or fraudulent design, is a constant element of its connotation. Even so, the quality and quantity of the honesty requisite for constituting 'good faith' is conditioned t/the context and object of the statute in which this term is employed. It is a cardinal cannon of construction that an expression which has no uniform precisely fixed meaning, takes its colour, light and content from the context. It was further held inter alia in paragraph 19 that "once it is estab lished by the transferring tenure-holder that the transfer in question effected in the course of ordinary management of his affairs, was made for adequate con sideration and he has genuinely, abso lutely and irrevocably divested himself of all right, title and interest (including cultivatory possession) in the land in favour of the transferee, the onus under Explanation II, in the absence of any circumstances suggestive of collusion, or an intention or design to defraud or cir cumvent the Ceiling Act, on the tenure-holder to show that the transfer was ef fected in 'good faith', will stand dis charged and it will not be necessary or the tenure holder to prove further that the transfer was made for an impelling need or to raise money for meeting a pressing legal necessity. ";