IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 1384 of 2007 State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital. ……………Petitioner. Versus Sri Gopal Singh & Ors. ………..Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State/petitioner. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondents. 21st August, 2008 Hon’ble Mr. P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the 18.12.1998 passed by the respondent no. 5 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Gopal Singh –tenure holder was in cultivatory possession of the land measuring 4.293 hectares situated at Village Kishanpur Sirkulia, Tehsil, Haldwani, District Nainital and on the basis of the possession, he got a declaration from the revenue court to the effect that he has acquired Bhumidhari rights in the land in his cultivatory possession and was declared as Bhumidhar in the year, 1986. Gopal Singh further purchased certain agricultural land in Village Kishanpur, Sarkulia and Bhawanipur Kisna in the name of his children measuring about 132 Bigha and 14 Biswa including Pradeep Singh (son) and wife Durga Devi. Besides the said land, land was also purchased in the names of daughters, who were admittedly unmarried at the time of the purchase namely Naina and Usha Kiran measuring 33 Bigha and 12 Biswa 2 and 51 Bigha and 4 Biswa respectively. The authorities concerned after taking into consideration the cultivatory possession of Gopal Singh over the land in question together with the land purchased by him in the names of his family members, issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act proposing to declare 3.188 hectares land of the petitioner as surplus land. After receipt of the notice, objections were filed by Gopal Singh alleging that Usha Kiran purchased the land from her own funds and the land purchased by him on 29.4.1983 could not be included in his holdings. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court passed an order on 16.2.1996, whereby all the three lands of the petitioner purchased in the names of his family members were clubbed while determining ceiling area of Gopal Singh declaring 4.782 hectares as unirrigated equivalent to 3.188 Hectares in irrigated terms. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Gopal Singh filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Kumaon Region, Nainital, which was allowed vide judgment and order datd 30.7.1996 and the matter was sent back to the trial Court for considering the question whether the land purchased in the name of Naina Mehta and Pradeep Singh was Benami transaction and directed the Prescribed Authority to record specific findings on the point. 4. After the remand of the petitioner, fresh notices under Section 10(2) read with Section 29/30- of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were to the respondents no. 1 to 4, who filed their objections. 3 5. The Prescribed Authority on 3.12.1997 passed an order holding that no land of the Gopal Singh is liable to be declared as surplus and discharged the notice issued to the tenure-holder. Thereafter, against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the State being Ceiling Appeal No. 1/1 of 1997-98 State of U.P. Vs. Gopal Singh and three others under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by holding that no evidence showing that the heirs of the petitioner are living separately has been filed. Against the said order, present writ petition has been filed. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has held that when the land measuring about 2.09 hectare was purchased by Smt. Naina Mehta, she was major, therefore, she cannot be said to be the member of the family of Gopal Singh (since deceased) and for purchasing the said land, she had taken money from her sister in law (Bhabhi), father in law Sri Deewan Singh Mehta, which is evident from the Cash Book & Ledger of the Bank. Naina Singh Mehta is in possession over the said land and Gopal Singh Mehta has no concern with the said land. Usha Kiran / respondent no. 4 had purchased the land in the year 1981 and 1983 from her own sources and in the year, 1981 and 1983, tenure holder Gopal Singh Kandari was having no land as Bhumidhari, Sirdari or on lease. He got a land 4 measuring about 4,265 hectare after the suit for declaration being decreed. A finding has further been recorded that the Pradeep Bhandari had also purchased the land from his own source and for purchasing the said land, he received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from M.S. Bhandari & Sons, Delhi, Rs. 50,000/- from his maternal brother Bhupal Singh Rawat and Rs. 50,000/- from one Tara Singh Bisht relying upon the documents available on record. Thereafter, after recording the aforesaid findings, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the State. 8. As will appear from the aforesaid, the appellate Court has taken each and every relevant document into consideration, while recording the aforesaid finding and concurrent findings have been recorded both the courts below, therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the courts below. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 18.12.1998 is confirmed. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.8.2008 Rathour