UP Land Ceiling Act Proceedings Can't Continue Based On Notice Issued In Dead Person's Name U/S 9 (2): Allahabad HC

For context, Section 9 (2) deals with the issuance of notice (at any time after October 10, 1975) to the tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date to submit within 30 days of such notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed.

Importantly, the 1960 Act provides for the acquisition of land for its equitable distribution and to make the surplus land available for distribution amongst landless agricultural labourers. Section 5 of the Act lays down that on, and from the commencement of the Act no tenure-holder was to be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout the State of U.P any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further held that if the State asserts that some land concerning a tenure holder is liable to be declared surplus under the Ceiling Act's provisions, the State has the burden to prove the relevant facts.

“The land cannot be declared surplus only because the tenure holder could not provide copies of some records, the liability to maintain which records rests on the State authorities,” the Court noted.

These observations were made by the single judge while allowing a writ plea filed by certain petitioners challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow, in which 22 bigha, 5 biswa, 6 biswanshi, and 17 kachhwanshi land of the petitioners were declared surplus.

The case in brief

Essentially, a notice under the Proviso appended to Section 9 (2) of the UP-Land Ceiling Act was issued in Hanuman Singh's name, although he had died in May 1975 before the notice was issued.

The petitioners (heirs of Hanuman Singh) submitted a reply to the notice stating that it had been issued in the name of a dead person. The objection further stated that Hanuman Singh had already transferred 35 bigha of his land through a registered sale deed as far back as 1963 and, therefore, he was not holding any surplus land.

The matter was decided ex-parte in February 1976, whereby 35 bigha land of Hanuman Singh was declared surplus.

Vide an order of July 1984 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow; the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision.

After remand, the Prescribed Authority confirmed the earlier order of declaration of the surplus land of Hanuman Singh on the ground that the petitioners had not filed a copy of the restoration application or reply to the notice filed within limitation.

Importantly, the prescribed authority did not advert to the plea of the petitioner that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act had been initiated against a dead person.

An appeal against the said order was also dismissed in September 1994 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. Challenging the same, the petitioners moved the HC.

Before the HC, the state did not dispute that the original tenure holder, Hanuman Singh, had died before issuing notice under the proviso appended to Section 9 (2) of the Ceiling Act.

Instead, it was argued that even if the notice was issued after Hanuman Singh, the original tenure holder, died, the notice published under Section 9 shall be deemed to apply to the heirs of the deceased tenure holder (petitioners) as per the provisions contained in Rule 19 (2) of the UP-Land Ceiling rules.

On the other hand, the petitioners' counsel contended that a division bench of the HC had already held the sub-Rule 19 (2) of Rules of 1961 to be ultra vires (in its verdict in Horam Singh and others vs. District Judge, Moradabad and others 1978).

For context, in the instant case, the Division Bench had specifically held that no proceedings for declaring the land of the tenure holder who is dead on the date of notification under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act can be taken.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the tenure holder Hanuman Singh had died before issuance of the notice under Section 9 (2) of the Ceiling Act, and hence, as per the law laid down by the Division Bench in Horam Singh (supra), no proceedings under the Ceiling Act could continue based on notice under Section 9 (2) issued in the name of a dead person.

The Court further observed that the approach of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court while declaring the land to be surplus for the sole reason that the petitioners could not provide copies of the records, which ought to have been maintained by the State authorities, was “against the basic principle of dispensation of justice”, which required the person asserting a claim to prove the facts which form the basis of the claim.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. However, the Court clarified that the authorities could institute fresh proceedings under the Ceiling Act against the petitioners under the law.

Case title - Bhanvi Saran Singh And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303

Click Here ToRead/Download Order