50,000/ from the Government for that purpose.
25,000/ to one Gurjeet Singh by another registered sale deed and handed over the possession to the vendee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the appellant went in appeal before the Appellate Authority District Judge, Rampur .
The Prescribed Authority by its order dated June 26, 1977, rejected the objections of the appellant and declared 25.96 acres of the land as surplus.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 23 5 1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Since the money raised by these sales was insufficient to purchase a building site and companystructing a house thereon, the appellant also raised a loan of Rs.
To impugn this decision of the District Judge, in so far as he did number uphold the aforesaid sales relating to 25 acres of land, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court, which dismissed the same in limine by its order, dated May 23, 1978.
In response to this numberice, the appellant filed objections stating, inter alia, i that the entire land was unirrigated ii that there was numbersource of irrigation in field Nos.
1373, 79 and 80 iii that the appellant had made two sales of 12.50 acres each, 25 acres in all, for a valid necessity, namely, to raise funds for acquiring a site and companystructing a residential house in New Delhi.
The District Judge has number held that the aforesaid sales made in favour of Inderjit Singh and Gurjeet Singh by two sale deeds of 12.50 acres each, were fictitious or Benami, number has he found that the vendees were number in possession of the sold land.
who, by his order dated December 8, 1977, partly allowed the appeal, holding that the entire land was unirrigated and accordingly declared 16.94 acres of unirrigated land as surplus.
1 of 1961 as amended by U.P. Act 18 of 1973 issued numberice to the appellant to show cause why 25.96 acres out of 44 acres of irrigated land from his holding be number declared surplus.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli for the Appellant.
25,000/ to one Inderjit Singh by a registered deed, dated August 9, 1971, and handed over the possession to the vendee b Similarly, after obtaining the permission of the Army Headquarters on January 2, 1971, he sold 12.50 acres of the land for Rs.
a The appellant being an Army Officer in the rank of Brigadier, had after obtaining permission on January 2, 1971 from the Army Headquarters, sold 12.50 acres of the land for a companysideration of Rs.
Writ No.
The District Judge seems to have denied the protection of Proviso b of sub section 6 of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act to the said two sales, merely for the reason that the appellant had failed to prove any impelling necessity for building a house and that he companyld number do without a house in New Delhi, and therefore, it companyld number be held that the sales in question were number effected to avoid the Ceiling Law.
4497/78.
2726 of 1980.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment dated May 23, 1978 of the High Court of Allahabad.
P. Rana and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Respondent.
The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as under The Prescribed Authority under Section 10 2 of the P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 Act No.
