Case Summary: Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.

& Ors (2009)

I. Background:

The case delves into an appeal challenging the order dated 21.5.2001 by the Allahabad High
Court. The core issue revolves around manipulative practices by unscrupulous litigants
regarding the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The appellant, Dalip
Singh, contests orders related to surplus land determination owned by Praveen Singh.

II. Appellant's Contention:

Dalip Singh, the appellant, puts forth a crucial contention regarding the alleged non-receipt of the
notice dated 29.11.1975 by Praveen Singh, the land tenure-holder. This contention is pivotal to
Dalip Singh's argument that Praveen Singh could not file timely objections due to this purported
non-receipt, leading to an ex parte order on 27.12.1975, declaring 18.22 acres of irrigated land as
surplus.

1. Non-Receipt of Notice: Dalip Singh asserts that Praveen Singh, his predecessor, did not
receive the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 29.11.1975. The notice
contained crucial information, including the statement of surplus land under Section
10(1) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

2. Impact on Objection Filing: Dalip Singh argues that the failure of Praveen Singh to
receive this notice directly influenced his inability to file objections within the stipulated
time frame. According to Dalip Singh, this lack of knowledge about the proceedings
hindered Praveen Singh's capacity to engage in the legal process, resulting in the ex parte
order.

3. High Court Stay and Interregnum: Dalip Singh further contends that the alleged non-
receipt of the notice, coupled with Praveen Singh's subsequent inability to file objections,
prompted the High Court to issue a stay order on 7.9.1990. This stay order, according to
Dalip Singh, allowed them to enjoy possession of the surplus land during the interim
period until the final dismissal of the writ petition on 21.5.2001.

4. Prejudice to Praveen Singh's Rights: The appellant emphasizes that the entire legal
process following the non-receipt of the notice has prejudiced Praveen Singh's rights. The
 stay order, though eventually leading to the dismissal of the writ petition, prolonged their
possession of the surplus land and affected the intended distribution to landless
individuals.

5. Foundation of Appeal: Dalip Singh's detailed assertion regarding the non-receipt of the
notice becomes the cornerstone of the appeal, aiming to establish that Praveen Singh's
failure to participate adequately in the legal proceedings was not due to any deliberate act
but a consequence of not being duly informed about the relevant notices and actions
taken by the Prescribed Authority.

III. Respondent's Contention:

In response to Dalip Singh's contentions, the respondents, represented by Shri Pradip Kumar
Singh, Additional Tehsildar, Distriet Bijnor, present a detailed counter-affidavit. This analysis
specifically focuses on the third point raised by the appellant regarding the objection filed by
Praveen Singh after an extended period.

1. Admission of Non-Dispute: The respondent begins by challenging Dalip Singh's claim

that Praveen Singh did not dispute the service of the notice dated 29.11.1975. The
counter-affidavit asserts that the tenure-holder, Praveen Singh, did not deny receiving the
notice, and in fact, no objection was filed until the issuance of the ex parte order on
27.12.1975.

2. Significance of Non-Filing Objections: The respondents argue that the act of not filing
objections within the stipulated 15-day period creates a presumption under Section 11 of
the Act. They contend that Praveen Singh's choice not to dispute or file objections within
the specified time period resulted in the Prescribed Authority determining the surplus
land accordingly.

3. Statutory Duties of Prescribed Authority: Shri Pradip Kumar Singh, in the counter-
affidavit, outlines the statutory duties of the Prescribed Authority. It is emphasized that
once the notice is served, it is the tenure-holder's responsibility to manage their affairs
and file timely objections. The Act, according to the respondents, does not mandate the
continuous communication of each proceeding date or order to the tenure-holder after
notice completion.
 4. Presumption of Correctness of Revenue Record: The respondents argue that the
statement of surplus land is prepared by revenue authorities based on the Act's provisions
and revenue records. They highlight a presumption of correctness associated with
revenue records.

5. Refusal to Reconsider Order: The counter-affidavit notes that the Prescribed Authority
and the Appellate Authority refused to reconsider the ex parte order, citing the absence of
valid grounds for doing so after an extended period.

6. Statutory Timeline and Prima Facie Evidence: Shri Pradip Kumar Singh underscores
the statutory timeline for processing objections and contends that Praveen Singh's
application, filed after six months, lacked valid grounds. No medical evidence or valid
cause for the delay was provided. The respondents argue that Praveen Singh's assertions
were general in nature and did not dispute the notice's service.

This detailed response forms a comprehensive rebuttal to Dalip Singh's contentions, focusing on
the statutory framework, the presumption of correctness, and Praveen Singh's responsibilities as
a tenure-holder under the Act.

IV. Court's Observations and Decision:

The court, after considering the detailed contentions presented by both the appellant and the
respondents, proceeds to offer observations and reach a decision. This analysis focuses on the
fifth point, delving into the court's perspective and the ultimate judgment.

1. Prima Facie False Statements: The court notes that Praveen Singh, the tenure-holder,
made prima facie false statements in his application filed on 8.7.1976. Specifically, the
court highlights Praveen Singh's assertion that he did not receive the notice dated
29.11.1975, along with the statement of surplus land. The court expresses amazement at
the audacity with which false statements were made under oath.

2. Three Generations of Misleading Conduct: The court observes that efforts to mislead
authorities and courts span three generations, involving the appellant, Dalip Singh, and
his son. This extended pattern of conduct is deemed reprehensible by the court.
3. High Court's Stay Order: The court acknowledges that the High Court, swayed by
misleading statements, stayed the operation of orders passed by the Prescribed Authority
and the Appellate Authority. This stay, the court notes, allowed the appellant's family to
continue enjoying possession of the surplus land for over eleven years.

4. Frustration of Distributive Action: The court highlights that the stay order resulted in
the frustration of actions intended to distribute the surplus land among landless persons.
The heirs of Praveen Singh retained possession during this period.

5. Misleading Statements to the High Court: The court specifically mentions the
misleading statement made by Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, grandson of Praveen Singh and
son of the appellant, regarding the non-receipt of the notice. The court expresses criticism
for such misleading conduct.

6. Reprehensible Conduct: The court categorizes the appellant and his son as individuals
who not only attempted but succeeded in polluting the course of justice. The conduct is
deemed reprehensible by the court.

7. Decision to Dismiss the Appeal: Based on the observations and the extended pattern of
misleading conduct, the court concludes that there is no justification to interfere with the
orders under challenge. The court dismisses the appeal and refrains from imposing
exemplary costs, considering the distribution of the surplus land among landless
individuals in 2002.