Chhedi Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors

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

deceased father of the appellant was having 1/4th share and

not 1/3rd share as mentioned in the notice whereas in khata

Nos. 138 and 341, he had only 1/8th 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

had inherited 1/4th 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

appellant had inherited 1/3rd 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

shares i.e. each would get 1/4th 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

appellant had inherited 1/3rd share from the properties

left by Mr. Ram Gopal. Obviously, the calculation of the

surplus land made on the basis that the appellant had

ininherited 1/3rd 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

appellant on the basis that the appellant had got 1/4th

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

that the appellant had inherited 1/4th share in the holding

of deceased Ram Gopal. The prescribed authority, Banda,

is hereby directed to redetermine the extent of surplus

land held by the appellant on the footing that the 1/4 th

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 that the appellant had inherited 1/4th share in the holding 17 of deceased Ram Gopal. The prescribed authority, Banda, is hereby directed to redetermine the extent of surplus land held by the appellant on the footing that the 1/4 th 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)