- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. The main issue in between tenure-holder and the State is as to whether the sale-deeds dated 19-1-1971 and 17-11- 1971 are saved by Section 5 (6) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 or not.
(2.) EARLIER proceedings were initiated against the tenure-holder Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon. It appears that both Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon and her husband Abdul Quddus petitioner in the second writ petition are the tenure-holders. Proceedings were initiated against Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon and land held by her as well as her husband Abdul Quddus was clubbed. Prescribed Authority through order dated 29-1-1975, held that there was no vacant land with Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon. State filed appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on 23-2-1976. The aforesaid two sale-deeds dated 19-1-1971 and 17-11- 1971 were executed by Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon and Prescribed Authority held that the said sale-deeds were quite bona fide and for valuable consideration. Thereafter on 11-9-1977, fresh proceedings were initiated. This time proceedings were initiated against Abdul Quddus, husband of Mahmooda Khatoon. He filed objections and stated that the two questions having already been decided were barred by principles of res judicata. Prescribed Authority accepted the contention and through order dated 6-12-1978 dropped the proceedings. Copy of the said order is Annexure 3, which was passed by the Prescribed Authority Ceiling (S. D. O.) Mawana, District Meerut in State v. Quddus. Against the said order State filed appeal being Revenue Appeal No. 35 of 1979. Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut allowed the appeal on 29-1-1981, true copy of the judgment is Annexure 4 to the second writ petition. The appellate Court remanded the matter on the ground that the names of transferees had been mutated in the revenue records hence under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Act, it was necessary to issue notice to the transferees. For the said proposition reliance was placed upon Full Bench authority of this Court reported in Shantanoo Kumar v. State, 1979 AWC 585. The appellate Court remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority holding that for want of notice to transferees proceedings of the Prescribed Authority were vitiated, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The Court completely failed to understand that what was the occasion for the appellate Court to hold the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority without jurisdiction for want of notice to the transferees when the said point was not raised either by the transferor or transferees. The matter had been decided in favour of the transferees by the Prescribed Authority hence there was absolutely no occasion to set-aside the said judgment for want of notice to them. Before appellate Court transferees were nowhere in picture. Appellate Court could set-aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority only if it found such error in the said judgment, which vitiated the ultimate order of the Prescribed Authority. If order of Court or tribunal is in favour of a party then it cannot be set aside on the ground that no notice was given to that party. The argument of absence of notice could be raised only and only by transferees or by maximum by the transferor. Neither they raised the said point nor there was any sense in raising the said point by them as ultimate judgment was in their favour.
(3.) AFTER remand Prescribed Authority/s. D. O. Mawana, District Meerut decided the matter on 30-3-1984. Copy of the said order passed in case No. 5 (under Ceiling Act) State v. Abdul Quddus, is Annexure 6 to the second writ petition. Through the said order Prescribed Authority held that both the sale-deeds were liable to be ignored, as they were not bona fide. Against the said order two appeals were filed one by the tenure-holder Abdul Quddus and the other by the transferees which were registered as Appeal Nos. 27 and 27-A of 1985-86. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissed both the appeals on 25-9-1986. The said judgments have been challenged through first writ petition by the transferees and through second writ petition by the tenure-holder/husband of the tenure-holder. In the orders dated 30-3-1984 and 29-9-1986, it has been held that earlier proceedings were taken against Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon hence they were without jurisdiction as proceedings should have been initiated against her husband. Prescribed Authority and the State themselves initiated proceedings against Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon hence they could not say that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. If husband and wife both are tenure-holder then normally proceedings are initiated against the husband however, if proceedings are initiated against the wife and land of husband and wife is clubbed then the proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Absolutely nothing was stated on behalf of State as to why earlier Ceiling proceedings were initiated against wife and not husband. State cannot take advantage of its own wrong, if at all there was any thing wrong in initiating proceedings earlier against wife.;