U.P. Development of Electro Homoeopathic System of Medicine, U.P. and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [kuldip singh and; p.b. sawant, jj.] tenancy and land laws — m.p. ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1960 — s. 4(1) and (4) - the object and the purpose of the m.p. ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1960, is to provide ceiling on the agricultural holdings, acquisition of surplus land and its disposal. provisions of section 4 of the act are a check on the transfers and the partitions which are made with a view to circumvent and defeat the provisions of the act. the high court on the interpretation of section 4(4) of the act held as under: the word ‘benami’ is sub-section (4) of section 4 of the act relates to transfers which are sham, fictitious, nominal or bogus. the burden to be discharged under section 4(4) of the act is a negative burden and as such less degree of proof than is usually required is warranted. such evidence as renders existence of the negative probable, changes the burden to the other party. following four elements are mandatory to void a transfer under section 4(4)— there must be a transfer by way of sale, gift, exchange or otherwise; the impugned transfer must have taken place during the period specified under section 4(4); it must have been made in anticipation of the act, having the effect of defeating any of the provisions of the act; the impugned transfer is benami i.e. sham, fictitious, nominal or bogus. the propositions (a) and (b) above are unexceptionable. however, the high court fell into an error in holding that unless the four elements are present the transfer cannot be declared void. it is not the requirement of section 4(4) that both the elements (c) and (c) are to be present to render a transfer void. the presence of either of the two elements is sufficient to declare the transfer void under the act. the high court was not justified in reading the word ‘or’ after the word ‘benami’ as ‘and’. a bare reading of section 4(4) of the act makes it clear that in either of the eventualities — defeating any of the provisions of the act or being benami — the transfer is liable to be declared void. the facts of this case clearly show that the impugned sale was made with the clear object of defeating the provisions of the act. the sale deed having been made after january 1, 1971 it came within the mischief of sections 4(1) and 4(4) of the act. the high court in disposing of the writ petition was not justified in reversing the finding of the board of revenue that the holder made the impugned sale to defeat the provisions of the act.order1. the petitioner-society was registered under section 3(a) (as applicable to the state of u.p.) of the societies registration act, 1860. the certificate of registration granted to the society expired in october, 1983. the petitioner applied for the renewal of the certificate of registration. since no action was taken on the application the petitioner approached this court by way of this writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of india. it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter regarding renewal of the certificate of registration is still pending consideration before the registrar of societies, state of u.p.2. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. although various questions regarding the eligibility of the petitioner-society to run the educational institutions have been raised in these proceedings but it is not necessary for us to go into the same. we are of the view that the registrar of the societies was under a statutory obligation to decide the application filed by the society for renewal of the registration certificate. we direct the respondent-registrar firms, societies and chits, uttar pradesh, lucknow to decide the application of the petitioners within three months from today after hearing the petitioner. the petitioner-society through its representative shall appear before the registrar on december 16, 1992. the registrar shall pass a speaking order dealing with all the points raised by the parties. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. copy of this order be sent to the registrar, societies, state of u.p. writ petition (c) no. 11837/853. the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner-society was registered under Section 3(A) (as applicable to the State of U.P.) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Certificate of Registration granted to the Society expired in October, 1983. The petitioner applied for the renewal of the Certificate of Registration. Since no action was taken on the application the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter regarding renewal of the Certificate of Registration is still pending consideration before the Registrar of Societies, State of U.P.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although various questions regarding the eligibility of the petitioner-society to run the educational institutions have been raised in these proceedings but it is not necessary for us to go into the same. We are of the view that the Registrar of the Societies was under a statutory obligation to decide the application filed by the Society for renewal of the registration certificate. We direct the respondent-Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to decide the application of the petitioners within three months from today after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner-Society through its representative shall appear before the Registrar on December 16, 1992. The Registrar shall pass a speaking order dealing with all the points raised by the parties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar, Societies, State of U.P. Writ Petition (C) No. 11837/85

3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.