- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. These writ petitions based on identical facts and common question of law have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) HEARD Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State and Sri A. P. Singh for respondent No. 5. In spite of time having been allowed on 22. 2. 2008 to show cause why the plots purchased by the petitioners by various sale deeds may not be included in the choice given by respondent No. 5, the heir of original tenure-holder, to be taken out as surplus land, neither the State respondents nor respondent No. 5 have shown any cause nor filed any counter-affidavit. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under : Notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') was issued to Ram Pratap the original tenure-holder (now dead and represented by respondent No. 5) proposing to declare 19. 31 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus in his hand on the appointed day, i. e. , 24. 1. 1971. The prescribed authority after contest by the tenure-holder confirmed the notice and held 19. 31 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. The tenure-holder went up in appeal. Appellate authority vide order dated 24. 8. 1977 finding that he had made gift of 22 acres of land before the appointed date, Le. , 24. 1. 1971 to his daughter and daughter's son held that the said area was not liable to be included in his holding and tenure-holder does not hold any land excess than the ceiling limit and accordingly, notices were discharged. The said order became final inasmuch as the State did not challenge the same. After the notices were discharged Ram Pratap executed two sale deeds dated 14. 11. 1980 in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10494 of 2008 and 10498 of 2008. His daughter also executed two sale deeds on 2. 8. 1983 and 23. 3. 1983 in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10500 of 2008 and 10497 of 2008.
(3.) ON 9. 8. 1988, notices under Section 29 of the Act was again issued to Ram Pratap stating that he possessed 50. 74/2 acres in terms of irrigated land and excluding 22 acres of land in pursuance of the decision of the appellate authority dated 24. 8. 1977 which was gifted away to his daughter and daughter's son before the appointed date the ceiling area being only 18. 20 acres he had 10. 72-1/2 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus in his hand. Ram Pratap having died in July, 1981 was substituted by his daughter who filed objection. Prescribed authority vide order dated 29. 11. 1990 confirmed the notice and declared an area 10. 72-1/2 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. The area transferred by Ram Pratap and his daughter in favour of the petitioners in these writ petitions was also included while determining the surplus area. An appeal was filed by the daughter of Ram Pratap against the order dated 29. 11. 1990 which was dismissed on 28. 2. 1990. Writ. petition filed by them challenging the order of the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an objection : under Section 11 (2) of the Act for recalling the order dated 29. 11. 1990 of the prescribed authority on the ground that after having purchased the land their names were mutated over the same and the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing. It was also pleaded in the objection that sale deed was executed in their favour after finalization of the ceiling proceedings against the tenure holder after receiving adequate consideration and as such the provision of Section 5 (8) of the Act was not at all attracted. The prescribed authority vide order dated 21. 6. 2004 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners who went up in appeal. The appellate authority vide order dated 10. 12. 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are bona fide purchaser for value and the land was purchased by them after finalization of the ceiling proceedings against the recorded tenure holder and the land transferred in their favour is not liable to be clubbed with the holding of the tenure holder while predetermining the surplus area in his hand. It has further been urged that the courts below have wrongly and illegally held the transfer made in favour of the petitioners to be void inasmuch as under Section 5 (8) of the Act it is only transfer made during continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land can be said to be void and in the present case the transfer was made after finalization of the ceiling proceedings.;