Case Note & Summary
By way of special leave, the Supreme Court considered an appeal against the summary dismissal of a writ petition by the Allahabad High Court. The proceedings arose under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, following a notice under Section 5 because the appellant had not voluntarily filed a declaration. The Additional District Judge, Jhansi, by order dated 23 February 1977, rejected three contentions regarding exclusion of certain lands from the appellant's ceiling holding. The High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1127 of 1977 dismissed the writ petition on 8 April 1977. The appellant contended that a registered sale deed dated 26 October 1970 conveyed 10 acres 33 cents to his minor daughter through her mother before the appointed day, i.e., 24 January 1971, and therefore the sale was valid. The ceiling authority clubbed the land on the ground that the unmarried daughter was not a member of the family. The appellant also argued that 12 plots measuring 13.47 acres transferred to a private temple on 28 January 1972 should be excluded, and that plots Nos. 5 and 13 should be treated as unirrigated. The court examined Section 5(6) of the Act, which requires ignoring transfers made after 24 January 1971 that would have resulted in surplus land, subject to a proviso for good faith, adequate consideration, irrevocable instruments not Benami and not for benefit of the tenure-holder or family. The definition of 'family' under the Act includes wife and minor children, including minor daughters other than married daughters. On the first issue, the court noted the District Judge's factual finding that the daughter was a minor and the sale deed was executed by the father making the wife the guardian of the minor daughter. Under personal law, the father during his lifetime remains the legal guardian of a minor and the mother cannot be legal guardian. The father cannot sell land to himself. Therefore, the land remained in the appellant's holding. On the second issue, the transfer to the private temple was made after the appointed day and was thus invalid in law, so the land had to be included. On the third issue, the Khasra record produced by the Lokpal, who was examined but not questioned about the nature of irrigation, showed that the land was irrigated by a tube-well called Nalcoop. Section 4A(a)(iii) of the Act includes land cultivated by a State tube-well or a private irrigation work as irrigated land. Hence the District Judge's classification was not unwarranted. The appellant's reliance on Ramadhar Singh v. Prescribed Authority & Ors. was distinguished on the ground that the specific language of Section 5(6) was not brought to the notice of the Court in that case. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Transfer to Minor Daughter - Validity of Pre-Appointed Day Sale and Family Definition - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 5(6) - The appellant sold 10 acres 33 cents to his minor daughter by registered sale deed dated 26-10-1970, before the appointed day 24-01-1971. The District Judge clubbed the land on the ground that the unmarried minor daughter was not a member of the family. The Supreme Court held that under personal law the father remains the legal guardian during his lifetime and cannot sell land to himself; the mother was not the legal guardian. Therefore, the sale was ineffective to exclude the land from the appellant's holding. Held that the land admeasuring 10 acres 33 cents was includable in the appellant's holding. B) Land Ceiling - Transfer to Private Temple - Post-Appointed Day Transfer Invalid - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 5(6) - The appellant transferred 12 plots covering 13.47 acres to his private temple on 28-01-1972, after the appointed day. The Supreme Court held that a transfer made after the appointed day in favour of a private temple was invalid in law and the land had to be included in the appellant's holding. Held that the land was includable in the appellant's holding. C) Land Ceiling - Classification of Irrigated Land - Tube-Well Irrigation Under Section 4A(a)(iii) - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 4A(a)(iii) - The appellant contended that plots Nos.5 and 13 were unirrigated and should be treated as unirrigable. The District Judge treated them as irrigated based on Khasra record showing irrigation by tube-well (Nalcoop). The Supreme Court held that Section 4A(a)(iii) includes land cultivated by a private irrigation work such as a tube-well as irrigated land; no question was put to the Lokpal regarding the nature of irrigation. Held that the District Judge's finding treating the land as irrigated was not unwarranted. D) Precedent - Distinguishing Ramadhar Singh - Applicability of Earlier Decision to Sale Deed Inquiry - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 5(6) - The appellant relied on Ramadhar Singh v. Prescribed Authority & Ors., (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 702, contending that genuineness of a sale deed executed prior to 24-01-1971 could not be determined. The Supreme Court distinguished the case, holding that the specific language of Section 5(6) and its proviso was not brought to the notice of the Court in Ramadhar Singh, and the Tribunal did not err in inquiring into the sale deed. Held that the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether sale of 10 acres 33 cents to minor daughter before appointed day could exclude land from ceiling holding; whether transfer of 12 plots to private temple after appointed day could be excluded; whether plots Nos.5 and 13 should be treated as unirrigated instead of irrigated under Section 4A(a)(iii); applicability of Ramadhar Singh v. Prescribed Authority & Ors.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition and the Additional District Judge's order including the disputed lands in the appellant's ceiling holding were upheld.
Law Points
- Transfers after appointed day that would create surplus land are ignored
- proviso for good faith and adequate consideration exceptions
- family includes minor children including minor daughters other than married daughters
- father as natural guardian cannot sell land to himself
- transfer to private temple after appointed day invalid
- tube-well irrigation qualifies as irrigated land under Section 4A(a)(iii)
