- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling ag grieved by the order of the prescribed authority in the proceedings under Sec tion 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, determining the ex tent of the surplus land of Pritam Singh, the petitioner No. 1 treating the land in dispute which was the subject-matter of the sale deed dated 11-8-1970 executed by Pritam Singh in favour of his sons Surjit Singh and Surendra Singh as continuing to be held by Pritam Singh, ignoring the said transfer rejecting the objections of the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 claiming to be exclusive tenure holders in possession thereof, the present writ petition has been filed by the father, Pritam Singh as well as his sons Surjit. Singh and Surendra Singh seeking the quashing of the orders of the respondent No. 3, the prescribed authority as affirmed in appeal by the respondent No. 2 only in so far as the decision on issues No. ' 2,5 and 7 are concerned.
(2.) I have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel repre senting the respondents and have carefully perused the record. The fact in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The land in dis pute formed part of an area of 280 bighas pertaining to a Khata wherein Sardar Pritam Singh was a co-sharer alongwith the several other persons. A sale deed was executed by Sardar Pritam Singh, Sardar Basant Singh and Sardar Surendra Singh disclosing their share in the aforesaid Khata to be 3/4th and transferring half thereof i. e. 3/8th share representing 105 bighas in favour of Sardar Surjit Singh, Sardar Surendra Singh, Sardar Ujagar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Kumari Dipak Alag and Shammi Alag for a consideration of Rs. 39,000. Proceedings were initiated under Section 10 of the Act against Pritam Singh in the year 1974. In the aforesaid proceed ings the total area held by Pritam Singh out of 280 bighas was taken to be 105 bighas. Pritam Singh filed ah objection asserting that the land which had been transferred in favour of Surjit Singh and others vide the sale deed dated 11-8-1970 referred to hereinabove could not be clubbed with the land held by him as the sale deed was a genuine transaction which had been fully acted upon.
(3.) THE prescribed authority vide the order dated 31-3-1995 upheld the objec tion of Pritam Singh and concluding that the entire area of the agricultural holding of which Pritam Singh could be held to be Bhumidhar could not exceed 35 bighas excluding the area transferred by him under the aforesaid sale deed discharged the notice treating the entire area held by Pritam Singh to be well within the ceiling limit. However, later on subsequent to the amendments made in the Ceiling Act in the year 1973, 1975 and 1976 fresh proceedings were initiated for determina tion of the extent of Surplus land held by Pritam Singh. THE aforesaid matter came up for consideration by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3687 of 1977 decided on3-4-1979. The first question which was framed by this Court for determination was whether the land purchased by the sons could be included in the holding of Pritam Singh. This Court taking into con sideration the facts and circumstances brought on record held that subsequent to the transfer dated 11-8-1970 it was not legally permissible to club the holding of the sons with that of Pritam Singh indicat ing clearly that the sons had purchased the land in their own independent rights and Pritam Singh could not be tenure holder of their land. Another question which was framed by this Court for determination was as to whether the sale deed executed on 11th August, 1970 was liable to be ig nored or not. In this connection, it was noticed that since the transfer has been made on a date prior to 24th January, 1971, it should not be ignored unless it was found to be sham transaction. It was further noticed that no such question had been urged on behalf of the State nor there was anything to show that the transaction was sham and therefore in the absence of such a finding the transaction could not be held to be a sham transaction and was not liable to be ignored. However, finding that the appellate authority without taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the petitioner had held the transferor to be still in possession did not approve the find ings in this regard and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh in accord ance with the directing that the question in regard to the age of Yashpal another son of Pritam Singh be also decided afresh. This court sent back the case to the appellate authority for deciding afresh in accord ance with law,;