Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8166 OF 2003
CHHEDI LAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondents
JUDGMENT
J.M. PANCHAL, J.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment
dated October 11, 2002 rendered by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Civil
Side) in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709 of
1995 by which the order dated February 28, 1995 passed by
the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Uttar
2
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(the Act for short) declaring 16.95 acres of land as
surplus holding of the appellant and the order dated
August 14, 1995 passed by the appellate authority
affirming the order of the prescribed authority, have been
upheld.
The appellant is resident of village Shingpur Mafi,
Tehsil Atarra, Distt. Banda, U.P. He is tenure holder.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Atarra submitted a report
dated 27.9.91, stating that the appellant was holding
16.95 acres of land in excess of the prescribed ceiling
limit. Therefore, he was served with a notice dated March
24, 1993 under Section 10(2) of the Act calling upon him
to show cause, as to why land admeasuring 16.95 acres
mentioned in the notice out of his total holding be not
declared as surplus. On receipt of the said notice, the
3
appellant filed his objections on July 30, 1993. In the
objections, it was mentioned that in khata No. 132, the
th
deceased father of the appellant was having 1/4 share and
rd
not 1/3 share as mentioned in the notice whereas in khata
th
Nos. 138 and 341, he had only 1/8 share. It was also
mentioned that lands of khata Nos. 180, 349, 1456 and 177
were already sold out through the sale deeds dated
February 5, 1973 and July 16, 1973 and therefor notice
issued was illegal. The case of the appellant in the
objections was that on January 10, 1980, the members of
his family had entered into a family settlement wherein
the land was partitioned and as his two major sons were
entitled to hold 2 hectares of land each, he was not
holding any surplus land. According to the appellant, the
notice also related to un-irrigated land and it was
further stated that the un-irrigated land was liable to be
4
excluded while determining the question whether he was
holding the land in excess or not. By filing the
objections, the appellant pleaded that he was not holding
16.95 acres of land in excess of the prescribed limit.
The prescribed authority framed necessary issues for
determination. The appellant adduced evidence in support
of his case. After considering the evidence adduced by
the appellant, the prescribed authority, by order dated
February 28, 1995, held that the appellant was holding
16.95 acres of land as surplus land.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred Appeal No.
23/1994-95 before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division,
Jhansi. The appellate authority confirmed the findings
recorded by the prescribed authority and dismissed the
appeal by judgment dated August 14, 1995. Thereupon the
appellant invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High
5
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709 of 1995 and
challenged the order of the prescribed authority as well
as that of the appellate authority. The High Court by the
impugned order has dismissed the writ petition giving rise
to the present appeal.
This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considered the documents forming part of the appeal.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the deceased father of the appellant
th
had inherited 1/4 share from the properties left by his
uncle Ram Gopal and, therefore, the authorities below as
well as the High Court committed error in holding that the
rd
appellant had inherited 1/3 share, while determining the
question whether the appellant was holding any surplus
6
land or not. The pedigree of the family as given in the
impugned judgment indicates that one Mr. Jagannath was
original owner of the disputed land. He had four sons
i.e. (1) Parag, (2) Beni Prasad, (3) Bhagwat and (4) Ram
Gopal. It is not in dispute that Mr. Parag, Mr. Beni
Prasad and Mr. Bhagwat pre-deceased Mr. Ram Gopal. It is
also not in dispute that Ram Gopal expired in the year
1965 intestate without any issue. It is not in
controversy that deceased Mr. Ram Gopal being a bhumidhar,
his holding would devolve upon his heirs being the
relatives as provided under Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act of 1950, for
short).
Section 171 of the Act of 1950, reads as under:-
171. General order of succession.- (1)
Subject to the provisions of Section 169,
7
when a bhumidhar or asami, being a male
dies, his interest in his holding shall
devolve upon his heirs being the relatives
specified in sub-section (2) in accordance
with the following principles, namely:-
(i) the heirs specified in any one clause
of sub-section (2) shall take
simultaneously in equal shares;
(ii) the heirs specified in any preceding
clause of sub-section (2) shall take
to the exclusion of all heirs
specified in succeeding clauses, that
is to say, those in clause (a) shall
be preferred to those in clause (b),
those in clause (b) shall be
preferred to those in clause (c ),
and so on, in succession;
(iii)if there are more widows than one, of
the bhumidhar or asami, or of any
predeceased male lineal descendant,
8
who would have been an heir, if
alive, all such widows together shall
take one share;
(iv) the widow or widowed mother or the
father's widowed mother or the widow
of any predeceased male lineal
descendant who would have been an
heir, if alive, shall inherit only if
she has not remarried.
(2) The following relatives of the male
bhumidhar or asami are heirs subject to
the provisions of sub-section (1),
namely:-
[(a) widow, unmarried daughter and the
male lineal descendant per stripes:
Provided that the widow and the son
of a predeceased son of a predeceased
son how low-so-ever per stirpes shall
inherit the share which would have
devolved upon the predeceased son had
9
he been alive;
(b) mother and father
(c) . . .
(d) married daughter
(e) brother and unmarried sister being
respectively the son and the daughter
of the same father as the deceased;
and son of a predeceased brother, the
predeceased brother having been the
son of a predeceased brother, the
predeceased brother having been the
son of the same father as the
deceased;
(f) son's daughter;
(g) father's mother and father's father;
(h) daughter's son;
(i) married sister;
(j) half sister, being the daughter of
the same father as the deceased;
(k) sister son
10
(l) half sister's son, the sister having
been the daughter of the same father
as the deceased;
(m) brother's son's son;
(n) mother's mother's son;
(o) father's father's son's son]”
A glance, at the above quoted provisions makes it
clear that when a bhumidhar being a male, dies, his
interest in his holding devolves upon his heirs being the
relatives specified in sub-section (2), in accordance with
the principles, specified in sub-section (1) of Section
171. The principle of devolvement mentioned in Section
171 (1) (i) is that the heirs specified in any one clause
of sub-section (2), take interest in holding of a deceased
bhumidhar simultaneously in equal shares. Sub-clause (e)
of sub-section (2) of Section 171 of the Act of 1950
11
specifies and includes, inter alia, son of a predeceased
brother, the predeceased brother having been the son of
the same father as the deceased.
Therefore, in terms of Section 171 of the `the Act of
1950', the properties left by Mr. Ram Gopal would devolve
on sons of his three brothers who had predeceased him.
The names of sons of his three brothers are (1) Rajaram,
(2) Shiva Mohan, (3) Surajdeen and (4) Shivbalak. It may
be mentioned that the appellant i.e. Chhedilal is the son
of deceased Surajdeen, who was the son of brother of
deceased Ram Gopal. The appellant, therefore, along with
Rajaram and Shiva Mohan who are sons of deceased Parag and
Shivabalak who is son of deceased Beni Prasad would take
the interest of deceased Ram Gopal simultaneously in equal
th
shares i.e. each would get 1/4 share in the holding of
deceased Ram Gopal. Thus, there is no manner of doubt
12
that the prescribed authority as well as the appellate
authority had committed error in holding that the
rd
appellant had inherited 1/3 share from the properties
left by Mr. Ram Gopal. Obviously, the calculation of the
surplus land made on the basis that the appellant had
rd
ininherited 1/3 share in the holding of deceased Ram
Gopal, will have to be regarded as contrary to the express
provisions of Section 171 of the Act of 1950 and the
matter will have to be remitted to the prescribed
authority for calculation of the surplus land held by the
th
appellant on the basis that the appellant had got 1/4
share in the holding of deceased Ram Gopal.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly
succeeds. The judgment dated October 11, 2002 rendered by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709 of 1995,
13
confirming the judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed by
Additional Collector (Finance)/Prescribed Officer, Banda
in Case No. 1 of 1992 concluding that the appellant holds
land admeasuring 16.95 acres in excess of the ceiling
limit prescribed, as well as the judgment dated 14.8.1995
passed by Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 23 of year
1994-95 upholding the judgment of the prescribed
authority, is hereby set aside. It is hereby declared
th
that the appellant had inherited 1/4 share in the holding
of deceased Ram Gopal. The prescribed authority, Banda,
is hereby directed to redetermine the extent of surplus
th
land held by the appellant on the footing that the 1/4
share in the holding of deceased Ram Gopal had devolved
upon the appellant. The redetermination of the excess
land held by the appellant shall be made within four
months from the date of the receipt of the writ from this
14
Court.
There shall be no order as to costs.
.................J
(J.M. PANCHAL)
.................J
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
New Delhi;
October 19, 2010.
15
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8166 OF 2003
CHHEDI LAL Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date: 19/10/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA
For Appellant(s) Mr. A.S. Pundir,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.
16
Mr. S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Manoj K. Dwivedi,Adv.
Ms. Vandana Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In terms of the reportable signed judgment,the appeal
partly succeeds. The judgment dated October 11, 2002
rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23709
of 1995, confirming the judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed by
Additional Collector (Finance)/Prescribed Officer, Banda
in Case No. 1 of 1992 concluding that the appellant holds
land admeasuring 16.95 acres in excess of the ceiling
limit prescribed, as well as the judgment dated 14.8.1995
passed by Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 23 of year
1994-95 upholding the judgment of the prescribed
authority, is hereby set aside. It is hereby declared
th
that the appellant had inherited 1/4 share in the holding
17
of deceased Ram Gopal. The prescribed authority, Banda,
is hereby directed to redetermine the extent of surplus
th
land held by the appellant on the footing that the 1/4
share in the holding of deceased Ram Gopal had devolved
upon the appellant. The redetermination of the excess
land held by the appellant shall be made within four
months from the date of the receipt of the writ from this
Court.
There shall be no order as to costs..
(V.K. Tiwari)
(Sneh Bala Mehra)
P. A.
Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)