Holding

Explanation I to Section 5(1) applies, making the alienated lands count towards the tenure‑holder’s ceiling and placing the burden on the respondents to prove they are not ostensible owners.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether lands alienated by Kishun Singh to his sons and daughters‑in‑law on 10 September 1970, prior to the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act amendment, should be treated as owned by the sons or as ostensible holdings of the tenure‑holder. The Court held that Explanation I to Section 5(1) of the Act applies, meaning all lands held in the tenure‑holder’s own right, even if in another’s name, are counted towards his ceiling. Consequently, the burden of proof lies on the respondents to show they are not merely ostensible owners, which they failed to do. The Court therefore declared Kishun Singh the true holder of the land, directed computation of the ceiling area including the transferred lands, and ordered the authorities to take possession of the surplus within three months. The appeals were allowed and the High Court’s order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether alienations made before the amendment but registered in the names of sons and daughters‑in‑law are to be treated as ostensible holdings under Explanation I of Section 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
Who bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that such alienations are genuine and not intended to defeat the ceiling provisions.

Subjects

land ceilingalienationostensible ownershipburden of proofsurplus landUttar Pradesh land lawjoint familybenami transaction

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. A

~
, v.
AMAR SINGH ETC.

OCTOBER 1, 1996

, _: .. (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (as amended
by Act 1of1972) :

S.5(1), Explanation I-Detennination of Ceiling area-Tenure holder c
sold certain lands to his sons and daughters-in-law on 10.9.197(}-The father
and the sons remained to be members of the joint f amity and were cultivating
the land as such-Alienated land treated as land of tenure holder while
detemiining surplus area-Held, the alienees being sons and daughters-in-law,
they are only ostensible owners under Explanation I of s. 5(1}--Tenure holder
remained to be the owner and holder of the land on the date and ceiling area
D
has to be computed treating him to be the owner of the land-The case falls
under Explanation I of s.5( 1) and burden is on the alienees to establish that
they were not ostensibly owning the land but remained in their own right as
owner~Authorities would compute the ceiling area keeping in view the
entitlement of eight sons of the tenure holder. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1554 of
1980 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.79 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 554 of 1978. F

A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant. "
~
""'
Pankaj Kalra, R.P. Singh, R.K. Khanna and A.K. Pandey for the
Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered
I
:

All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since all
the respondents are either sons or daughters-in-law of the tenure-holder
by name Kishun Singh. H
165
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R ..

A Kishun Singh, admittedly, held 110 acres of agricultural lands. The
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was amended. Act
1 of 1972 came into force w.e.f. January 24, 1971. The admitted pos.ition is
that prior to the Amendment Act came into force on September 10, 1970,
Kishun Singh had alienated by registered sale deeds his holdings in favour
of his sons and daughters-in-law. When the computation was sought to be
B
made of the surplus land under Section 5 of the Act, the respondents
claimed lands as of their own. Accordingly, they sought to be holders of
the lands purchased by them under the sale deeds. The Tribunals disal-
lowed it but in the Writ Petition Nos. 384/78 and batch by impugned order
dated October 29, 1979, the High Court allowed the matters and set aside
C the orders of the authorities. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
raised two-fold contention. It is contended that by operation of sub-section
(6) of Section 5, any alienations made on or after January 1971 are declared
D to be null and void unless they are bona fide transactions for valuable
consideration and are not intended to be a sham transaction or benami
alienation. The alienation came to be made by Kishun Singh in favour of
his sons and daughters-in-law on September 10, 1970, i.e., prior to amend-
ment Act came into force; mutation also was effected thereafter. As on the
date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, the respondents were
E registered holders of agricultural holdings. Kishun Singh was neither hold-
ing the land nor was he a tenure-holder of the alienations. The alienations
being genuine transactions effected prior to. the coming into force of the
Act, the same have to be taken into consideration and the lands covered
by the sale deeds are required to be excluded from the holding of Kishun
F Singh. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunals below was not correct in
law. It is also contended that the burden of proof on the respondents would
arise only in case the alienations were made on or after January 24, 1971;
rather the burden is on the State to prove that they are not genuine
transactions and are intended to defeat the provisions of the Act. No proof
in that behalf was adduced by the State. On the other hand, the respon-
G dents have produced oral and documentary evidence through their ex-
amination and by way of the sale deeds. Lekh Pal, examined on behalf of
the appellant, has not given any categorical statement that the respondents
were not in possession of the lands purchased by them in their own right
as owners. The District Judge has not given any categorical finding in that
H behalf. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct in law.
STA1Ev. AMAR SINGH 167

Having considered the contentions, we find that the learned counsel A
is not right in his submissions. The object of the Amendment Act is to see
that the transactions effected on or after January 21, 1971 were null and
void and were intended to defeat the provisions of the Act unless it is
established that valid consideration has been passed and the alienation was
for compelling legal necessity; that it was supported by adequate considera- B
tion and it was not a benami transaction. In this case, the question arises:
whether Explanation I to Section 5(1) would apply to the facts? In our view,
Explanation I of Section 5( 1) would apply to the facts. Section 5 reads as
under:

"5 Imposition of Ceiling: {1) One and from the commencement of C
the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
{Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold
in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of
the ceiling area applicable to him.
D
Explanation 1. In determining the ceiling area applicable to a
tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his

- own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be
taken into account.

Explanation II. If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held E
by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possession
and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register
after the said date either in addition to or to the exclusion of the
former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence
or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary p
is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the
first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so
held by him catensibly in the name of the second mentioned
person.... "

Thus, on and from the date the Amendment Act came into force, G
namely, January 21, 1971, the tenure-holder shall not hold, throughout the
State of Uttar Pradesh, any land in the aggregate in excess of ceiling area
applicable to him. Explanation I adumbrates that in determining ceiling
area applicable to a tenure-holder, all lands held by him in his own right,
whether in his own name or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A be taken into account. In other words, as on the date the Amendment Act
came into force, the land must held by tenure-holder in his own right and
the lands ostensibly in the name of any other person shall be taken into
account. In this .case, admittedly, the alienations came to be made by
Kishun Singh in favour of his sons and daughters-in law. Normally, one
B would expect that if there is any compelling legal necessity to alienate the
land, one would sell the land to third parties and that too, as prudent
vender, for valuable consideration not to the sons and daughters-in-law.
The object appears to be, as rightly pointed out by the District Judge, that
the alienations were made by registered instruments in favour of his sons
and daughters-in-law only to see that the provisions of the Act are defeated
C and the lands do not pass into the hands of strangers. It is true that the
evidence was adduced by the respondents as regards proof of mutation.
Mutation was effected on the basis that sale deeds came to be executed in
favour of sons and daughters-in- law. Therefore, the mutation officer was
not concerned at that stage to find out whether the sales were benami or
D ostensibly intended to defeat the provisions of the Act. It is settled law that J

mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the State to collect
the land revenue from the person in possession but it does not confer any
title to the land. The title would be derived from an instrument executed
by the owner in favour of an alienee as per Stamp Act and registered under
E Registration Act. The alienees being sons and daughters-in-law, the tenure-
holder remained to be the owner and holder of the land. The sons and
daughters-in-law are only ostensible owners under Explanation I to Section
5(1) of the Act. It is true that Lekh Pal has not categorically stated whether
the respondents remained in possession in their own right after the aliena-
tion. It is not in dispute that the father and sons remained to be members
F of the joint family and were cultivating the land. Under these circumstan-
ces, one would normally expect that Lekh Pal may not be in a position to
categorical assert whether respondents remained in possession in their own
right as owners or were cultivating land on their own or on behalf of the
coparceners. Under these circumstances, the findings of the High Court
G are illegal. The case falls under Explanation I of Section 5(1) and the
burden is always only on the respondents to establish that they were not
ostensibly owing the land but remained in their own right as owners.
Accordingly, we hold that Kishun Singh was the holder of the land. He was
a tenure-holder as on the date and, therefore, ceiling area has to be
H computed treating him to be the owner of the land; besides himself, he had
STATEv.AMARSINGH 169
eight sons who are entitled to the respective additional ceiling area given A
to them under the Act. The authorities are, therefore, directed to compute
the ceiling area accordingly and take possession of the surplus land.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court
is set aside. The authorities are directed to determine the excess surplus
area within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order B
of this Court and should take possession thereof. No costs.

RP. Appeals allowed.