M. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
(2.) The facts, in brief are these: The usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner and he filed objections. The objections were dealt with and disposed of by the Prescribed Authority. Subsequently, an appeal was filed to the appellate court below and the appeal was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside in view of the fact that the Act had undergone big amendments and it became necessary for the Prescribed Authority to proceed de novo in the matter. Thereafter, fresh proceedings started and the Prescribed Authority passed fresh orders and this time the petitioner went up in appeal to the appellate Court below and the said appeal was partly allowed. On the first occasion it may be stated that the State had gone up in appeal against the Prescribed Authority's first order.
(3.) Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support of the same Sri Rajesh Ji Verma learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below wrongly rejected the sale deed which the petitioner had executed in favour of one Smt. Saroj Kumari on 17th March, 1972. The learned counsel submitted that in the earlier proceedings the Prescribed Authority had accepted the said transaction. He next contended that the evidence on the record has not been considered and discussed by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate Court below. He further contended that his client was at the relevant time detained under MISA and two applications were made on his behalf to the Prescribed Authority praying that he should be summoned to appear before the Prescribed Authority in support of his case but no orders were passed on these applications. He placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in 1978 All LJ 597 (Mewa Devi v. State) where it has been laid down that Section 5 (6) (b) aims to hit transfers by which a tenure holder ostensibly transfers land to retain ownership and control of it. The learned Judge further observed that when the Legislature speaks of a transfer being not proved to be in good faith, it contemplates a transfer being vitiated on account of something akin to fraud. Lastly, the learned counsel placed reliance on 1978 All LJ 724 (Rajendra Prasad v. State) where it has been laid down as under (at p. 727):- "When once an adjudication of the rights of the tenure-holders in respect of the land lying within the consolidation area has been made, Section 49, makes such determination of title conclusive. Section 49 in a way lays down a rule of res judicata so far as the question relating to the declaration and adjudication of the rights of tenure-holders in respect of the holdings are concerned; the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue court to question the correctness or otherwise of the entries, which are made in the revenue records as a result of the consolidation proceedings is, therefore, completely passed on.";