HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 3002549 of 1983 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional CSC for the petitioner - State and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1/1 & 1/2. 2. Notices were issued to rest of the respondents but no response has been received. 3. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer : "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.1982 contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. (ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 4. (a) Factual matrix of the case is that two separate notices under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 were served upon respondent No.17 and 18 on 15.04.1976 calling upon them to show cause as to why the land in excess of the ceiling limit held by them be not declares as surplus. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, P.N. Bhatt, R.P. Singh, Syed Mohammad Haider State of U.P. .....Petitioner(s) Jagwanti Devi .....Respondent(s) (b) Respondent Nos.17 & 18 filed objections before the prescribed authority on 24.05.1976 and the cases of respondent Nos.17 & 18 were consolidated together by order dated 10.01.1977. Respondent No.1 Smt. Jagwanti Devi filed an application on 12.07.1979 to by impleaded as a party in the ceiling case along with objections, which was allowed by prescribed authority on 12.07.1979. (c) The prescribed authority (ceiling) vide order dated 08.05.1981 ignored the unregistered sale deed and held plot Nos.519/0-10, 522/0-90, 521/0-62 and 523/0-38 as surplus land from the holding of respondent Nos.17 & 18. Respondent Nos.2 to 16 have not filed objections before the prescribed authority nor they started any proceeding. (d) Against order passed by the prescribed authority, respondent Nos.1 to 16 preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act which was registered as rent appeal No.78 of 1982. Learned District Judge, Bahraich, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority except appellant No.9 Angnoo. 5. Submission of learned Additional CSC is that on the basis of unregistered sale deed and without mutation in revenue record, it is presumed that same has been submitted by concerned authority and the witnesses establish their title, which is wholly illegal and against Section 5 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 6. He next submitted that without assigning reasons the appellate court has came to the conclusion that the witnesses establish their title and came to the opinion that the appeal needs to be allowed which is erroneous and misconceived. Without assigning reasons the appeal could not be allowed in the judgment dated 19.05.1982. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned Additional CSC for the petitioner. He submitted that on the basis of small portion of land the title was decided in favour of the appellants. He submitted that reasons have been recorded in the impugned order dated 19.05.1982. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the WRIC No. 3002549 of 1983 2 parties and perused the material on record. 9. On perusal of judgment passed by the appellate court on 19.05.1982, it is apparent on the face of it that without assigning reasons the appellate court has came to the conclusion that the appeal except Angnoo needs to be allowed. 10. No reasons whatsoever has been recorded in allowing the appeal. It is alleged that land was purchased by unregistered sale deed and no mutation could take place. The prescribed authority by recording reasons in rejecting the objection of the appellant has came to the conclusion that no title can be decided in favour of the objectors on the ground that the sale deed appears to be forged and bogus. 11. The sale deed was done in the year 1968 and no mutation could took place till year 1979 which clearly demonstrates the fact that the sale deed is bogus. The appellate court has recorded finding that the land involved of each transferee is very small. He also recorded that the consideration also does not appear inadequate. This finding has been challenged in writ petition on the ground that it is perverse in nature and based on wrong presumption. 12. The basis of transfer of land is unregistered sale deed and no mutation could take place, therefore, title of the respondents could not have been affirmed by the appellate court. 13. In view of above, in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19.05.1982 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 15. However, the matter is remanded back to the appellate court to re- examine the material on record and to pass fresh order in accordance with law. August 26, 2025 Adarsh K Singh WRIC No. 3002549 of 1983 3 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench