The Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer of land made during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land is void under Section 5(8) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It held that the Prescribed Authority cannot validate such a transfer by accepting the choice exercised by the tenure-holder under Section 12-A of the Act.

Section 5(6) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 provides that transfers made after 24 January 1971 are ordinarily to be ignored while determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, unless the transfer is proved to be in good faith and for adequate consideration, under an irrevocable instrument, and is not a benami transaction or one for the benefit of the tenure-holder or members of his family.

Section 5(8) provides that notwithstanding anything in sub-sections (6) and (7), no tenure-holder shall transfer any land during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land, and that every transfer made in contravention shall be void. The Explanation provides that such proceedings commence with publication of the notice under Section 9(2) and conclude only when the final order is passed under Sections 11, 12 or 13.

Section 12-A(d) of the Act requires the Prescribed Authority, while determining surplus land, to avoid as far as possible taking land which is the subject of such a transfer, and provides that where such land is necessarily included in the surplus area, the transfer stands void to that extent.

Justice Irshad Ali held,

“It is to be noted that the expression contained in Section 5(8), "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (6) and (7)", has consciously excluded transfers made during pending ceiling proceedings from the protective umbrella otherwise available under Section 5(6).”

“Therefore, acceptance of the statutory choice by itself could not have the effect of validating a transfer which by virtue of the statue is void. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the prescribed authority committed a manifest error of law in proceeding to recognise…”

Ceiling proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act were initiated on 30.01.2006 against Smt. Noorjahan, the original tenure-holder. She died during the proceedings and her sons were substituted in her place. By order dated 02.03.2010, modified on 06.03.2010, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Lucknow declared 24.781 hectares in terms of irrigated land as surplus.

While those proceedings were pending, the substituted heirs sold 1.436 hectares of land in village Salempur to respondent no.4 by registered sale deed dated 23.05.2007. His mutation application was initially refused, the Tehsildar holding that a sale made during the pendency of ceiling proceedings was void ab initio.

His appeal under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act was dismissed. On a restoration application, the Tehsildar allowed mutation on 19.09.2016, relying on an appellate order of the Commissioner dated 11.04.2016.

The Prescribed Authority thereafter passed orders dated 28.11.2018 and 13.12.2018 excluding the land sold to respondent no.4 from the surplus pool and directing the Tehsildar to declare an equivalent area from the ceiling area of the vendors as surplus instead.

The petitioners, who claimed to have purchased land from the original tenure-holder in 1997 and to be recorded in the revenue records, challenged these orders as well as the earlier ceiling orders, pleading that no notice was ever served on them before their holdings were drawn into the proceedings.

The respondents raised three preliminary objections: the petitioners were not “persons aggrieved”, an appeal lay under Section 13 of the Act, and the real grievance was against a private individual.

The Court rejected all three, holding that a challenge to the inclusion of recorded holdings without notice could not be shut out at the threshold. It held that allegations of jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice fall within the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.

Further, it held that the petitioners were questioning the exercise of statutory power by public authorities rather than seeking cancellation of the sale deed or a declaration of title.

On the merits, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., which drew a firm line between transfers made after 24.01.1971 but before ceiling proceedings began, which fall under Section 5(6), and transfers made during their pendency, which are governed exclusively by Section 5(8). In the latter class, no enquiry into bona fides or adequacy of consideration is permissible because the statute itself declares the transfer void from its inception, held the Court.

“Whereas Section 5(6) leaves room for judicial scrutiny regarding the genuineness of the transfer, Section 5(8) leaves no such discretion. The legislative command is absolute.”

Since the respondents did not dispute that the sale deed dated 23.05.2007 was executed after the ceiling proceedings had been initiated, the Court held that the statutory consequence followed automatically.

“The transfer becomes void by operation of law and no adjudicatory discretion can be exercised by the prescribed authority to validate the same on considerations of equity, bona fides or statutory choice.”

Holding that the non obstante clause in Section 5(8) had consciously excluded transfers made during pending ceiling proceedings from the protection otherwise available under Section 5(6), the Court held that the Prescribed Authority had committed a manifest error of law in recognising and protecting the transfer.

Further, the Court relied on the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P., which holds that where land included in C.L.H. Form-3 is ostensibly held in the name of another person, Rule 8 of the Rules requires notice to be served on that person, that such notice is the foundation of the Prescribed Authority's jurisdiction, and proceedings taken without it are void. Neither knowledge of the proceedings nor the availability of a remedy under Section 11(2) can cure the defect, it held

Justice Irshad Ali held that the respondents pointed to no material showing service of notice under Rule 8, defending instead on the ground that the petitioners' land was distinct from that purchased by respondent no.4 and no prejudice had been caused. The Court held these were two separate issues.

“The question whether respondent No.4 purchased different Gata numbers has no bearing upon the statutory obligation of the prescribed authority to serve notice upon every recorded tenure-holder whose land forms part of the proceedings.”

The respondents had also objected that the impugned orders were later stages of the same ceiling proceedings already before the Court in a writ petition of 2010, and the petitioners should have brought the developments on record there rather than filing a fresh petition. The Court accepted that this was ordinarily the correct course, but held that

“..this principle is more a principle of judicial discipline and cannot operate to sustain an order which is passed without jurisdiction or passed in contravention of mandatory statutory provisions”

On the mutation order dated 19.09.2016, the Court observed that mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and that entries in revenue records neither create nor extinguish title. Since the petitioners had already invoked the statutory revisional remedy against that order and the revision was pending, the Court declined to interfere.

Allowing the writ petitions, the Court set aside the orders dated 02.3.2010 as modified on 06.3.2010 and quashed the orders dated 28.11.2018 and 13.12.2018 to the extent they recognised and excluded the land transferred by the sale deed dated 23.05.2007 as protected under the statutory right of choice.

The matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

Click Here To Read/Download Order