S.U.Khan - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS' grandfather Nekram executed a registered gift deed on 18.3.1972 transferring 26 bighas agricultural land to the petitioners, who were minors at that time, through their mother/guardian Shrimati Dayawati. In ceiling proceedings under Section 10 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, against Jagdish Prasad, father of the petitioners, the petitioners' land (i.e., land which was gifted to them by their grandfather on 18.3.1972) was also clubbed. After decision of ceiling proceedings against Jagdish Prasad, father of the petitioners, petitioners through their mother filed objections under Section 13 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, before the Prescribed Authority regarding the land in dispute. Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act/Sub-Divisional Officer Khair district Aligarh on 14.10.1981, rejected the objections and held that this question was raised by the father of the petitioners and it was decided against him up till High Court. Against the order dated 14.10.1981 petitioners filed appeal in the form of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal (Ceiling) No. 174 of 1981, Krishna Murari Lal and another v. State of U. P. II A.D.J., Aligarh, through judgment and order dated 25.1.1984 dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition. Appellate court held that earlier proceedings were finalized against Jagdish Prasad by the Prescribed Authority on 24.10.1977. However, appeal filed against the said order was allowed in part on 29.4.1978 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter Prescribed Authority again passed the order against Jagdish Prasad on 29.3.1979, declaring about 25 bighas land held by him as surplus. Against the said order appeal was filed, which was dismissed on 26.5.1979. Against the said order Writ Petition No. 6624 of 1979 was filed, which was dismissed on 22.10.1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that as the grandfather of the petitioners had transferred the land in dispute to the petitioners through registered gift deed dated 18.3.1972 and in the revenue records their names had also been mutated on 12.9.1972, hence it was necessary to give them notice, which was not done, hence proceedings are vitiated. In this regard two authorities have been cited-one is Shantanu Kumar v. State of U. P., 1979 ALJ 1174 (FB) and the other is in Teja Singh v. State of U. P., 1980 ALJ 566. In Teja Singh's authority the facts were that father, in ceiling proceedings against him, had claimed that the son was major and tenure holder in his own right. The said point had been decided against the father. Afterwards the son raised the same point. The High Court held that determination of the said point against the father did not debar the son from raising the said point. In the Full Bench authority it has been held that a recorded tenure holder is entitled to notice and without notice ceiling proceedings are without jurisdiction.
(3.) EVEN though through gift deed land in dispute had been transferred to the minor petitioners through their mother as guardian, however, in the normal course father is the guardian. Irrespective of validity of the gift deed, the land of the minor petitioners was liable to be clubbed with the land of their father by virtue of Section 3 (17) of the Ceiling Act which defines 'tenure holder' to be a person who is the holder of a holding but does not include a minor child whose mother or father is a tenure holder. Accordingly, petitioners could not be tenure holders.;