LAW CENTRE-1,UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

MOOT COURT EXERCISE-2023-2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
BEFORE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD,UTTAR PRADESH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
W.P. (C) ____/ 2015
In the matter of:

Anjali Singh

D/o Roshan Singh …. PETITIONER

AND

Deputy Director of Consolidation …. RESPONDENT NO 1

Kundan Singh …. RESPONDENT NO 2

Roshan Singh …. RESPONDENT NO 3

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED BY-
RITESH KUMAR SAH
EXAM ROLL-21310806367
SECTION-E -
e

I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Particular Page no
List of abbreviations 3
Index of authorities 4
Statement of jurisdiction 5
Statement of facts 6
Statement of issues 7
Summary arguments 8
Arguments advanced 9-12
Prayer 13

I
 3

LIST OF ABBREVATION

Particulars Full Form

UP Uttar Pradesh
HJF Hindu Joint Family
u/s Under Section
HSA,2005 Hindu Succession Act
HSaA,2005 Hindu Succession(amendment) Act
Section Sec
CPC,1908 Civil Procedure Code,1908
UPZALR, Act Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act,1950
Dd Deputy Director
v. Versus
Ors. others
Anr. Another
AIR All India Report

I
 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• Constitution of India, art.13,31-A,245,256

• Hindu Succession Act,1956 (30 of 1956) art.4,6
• Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950

BOOKS

• Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family law 2 (Lexis Nexis, Delhi, 4 edn, 2019 )

ONLINE SOURCES

• https://indiankanoon.org/

LEXICONS

• Black's Law Dictionary

CASE LAWS

• Archna v Deputy Director of consolidation(2015)111 ALR 63

• State of Gujarat v Shivarjsinh Harishchandrasinh, 2018 GLH (2) 29

• Arunachala Gounder v Ponnusamy(2022)11 SCC 520

• Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma(2020)9 SCC

I
 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Uttar Pradesh, exercises jurisdiction to hear and
adjudicate over the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 1 The petitioner
humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this court. 1

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which
the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other
manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without (a) furnishing to such
party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such
party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and
furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such
party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is
received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or,
as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on
the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 321

IV
 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. There is a disputed land of 7000 hectares in Uttar Pradesh, which is contested by Anjali
the married daughter of the family that it was disposed of without her consent.

2. The contested property was an ancestral property belonged to the grandfather of the
daughter and upon the death of grandfather devolved upon his two sons Malik & Roshan
Singh and their sons as it is stated.

3. They formed HJF as Roshan Singh father of the daughter as the karta which he acted in
that capacity till 1989. Roshan executed a sale deed on 16/11/2015 in favour of Kundan
Singh of the above said property but without taking consent of the daughter Anjali.

4. The argument put forward by the father that she is neither a part of the HJF as she being
married and nor a coparcener.

5. To contest her claim on the land, she filled for proceedings on 4/04/2013 by stressing on
that under HSA and HSaA, 2005 she is eligible for her share u/s 6(1)(c).

6. She contested that the deed executed has no validity and the deed is void.
7. Kundan Singh against whom the deed was executed said that this land is governed by
UPZALR Act and not HSA.

8. The consolidation officer of the revenue department also rejected the claim by the
daughter that this land is governed by UPZALR Act and not the HSA Act.

9. Daughter also filled an appeal against the order of consolidation officer to the Dd
consolidation but her claim and the appeal again got rejected.

10. Now the writ has been filled by the daughter against the decision of the revenue
department officers.

IV
 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the contested property (agricultural land) be governed by UPZALR Act or HSA
Act?

2. Whether the revenue department officers acted in an arbitrary manner in disposing of the
claim of the daughter?

3. Does it lead to gender discrimination by not giving share of agricultural land to the
marriage daughter?

4. Is the writ and its issues are maintainable?

IV
 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the contested (agricultural land) property be governed by UPZALR Act or

HSA Act?

After the amendment of 2005, sec 4 of HSA was removed as that dealt with the
devolution of agricultural holdings to the married and unmarried daughters. But there
seem to be a problem/confusion on some occasion as in the absence of state law dealing
with agricultural land; will the HSA be automatically applied? Agricultural land is
explicitly under the state list, and the central law HSA will not be automatically applied if
there exist a state law. No suo moto application of the law will take in the matter of
agricultural land. Inheritance and succession are matters specified in list 3(entry 5), while
land is a state subject.

This confusion was cleared by Allahabad HC in “Archna v Deputy Director of

Consolidation1” & “State of Gujarat v Shivarjsinh Harishchandrasinh 2”.

2. Whether the revenue department officers acted in an arbitrary manner in disposing

of the claim of the daughter?

The settlement officer and Dd consolidation did not acted in an arbitrary & unreasonable
manner. Officers of the revenue department by applying their judicial acumen and fine
sense of the interpretation of statutes UPZALR & HSA gave the order of settlement of
the contested property in favor of the respondent. No pressure was forced onto them to
give the settlement in their favor, they acted on their own.

1
Archna v Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2015)111 ALR 63
2
State of Gujarat v Shivarjsinh Harishchandrasinh, 2018 GLH (2) 29

IV
 9

3. Does it lead to gender discrimination by not giving share of agricultural land to the
marriage daughter?

No it does not lead to any gender discrimination as the land should be with actual tillers
and after the marriage the daughter would go to in laws house leaving bare land with her
parents and making their survival difficult

IV
 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the contested property (agricultural land) be governed by UPZALR Act or

HSA Act?

The contested property in the above mentioned case is the agricultural (land) property of
HJF. According to the constitution, in which the different types of lists are mentioned
agricultural land explicitly comes under State list (entry 18).3 So, all the matters relating
to disposing of the affairs of the land would exclusively fall within the purview of the
State government and no Central law can be applied automatically or by any special
procedure

Inheritance and succession are subjects specified in list3 (entry5) 4, while land is a state
subject. Normally if there is confusion over a particular item that whether center can
make law or state, it is that center that prevails but normally subjected to Article 2565 that
the center should be competent to legislate on it.

However post amendment in the HSA, deletion of provision exempting application of the
act to agricultural holding which is sec 4(2) of the hsa, 1956 6 explains that HSA will not
apply to agricultural landholdings, fixation of ceilings and devolution of tenancy rights of
such holdings and to such property and to any interest in such property the act will not get

List 2(entry 18): Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and
tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural
loans; colonization.
4
List 3( entry 5): Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint
family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law.
5
Article 256: The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made
by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extent to
the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
6
Sec 4(2) of the HSA is reproduced hereunder: Overriding effect of Act
(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the
provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural
holdings or for the fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings.

IV
applied. It was only when an express provision did not existed with respect to agricultural
property then only provisions of HSA will apply otherwise not.

IV
 11
By deletion of sec 4 confusion got created as the legislature has not provided any express
provision that states or confirms the application of HSA, to agricultural property and
above any state law that also deals with the same.

These laws, which provide for fragmentation of agricultural landholdings, fixation of

ceilings and devolution of tenancy rights, apply to the inhabitants of the state uniformly
irrespective of the religion.

For example, the whole of agricultural holdings (unless expressly provided) would be
subjected to uniform law and the religion of the landowner will be of no consequence.
The deletion of sec 4(2) post amendment of 2005, and an implied presumption that HSA,
will apply to all kinds of agricultural property would now mean that diversity would exist
state wise with respect to law governing agricultural property.

This amounts to confusion.

The Allahabad High Court was confronted with this very issue bringing some clarity and
said that deletion of the provision has not made any difference as it only clarified the
position and did not make any provision to the settled legal provision. In “Archna v

8 was held thus combined reading of the preamble,

Deputy Director of consolidation” sec 4 and sec 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 it
is clear that the Act was applied on Joint Hindu Mitakshara property only and not on
agricultural land. As held above, agricultural land is in exclusive domain of State
Legislature and Parliament has no power to enact any law in this respect. Sec4 (2) was
only by way of clarification. On its basis, it cannot be said that after its deletion, HSA,
1956 suo moto applies to agricultural land.

Under sec 6, (as amended) daughters are given right under Hindu Mitakshara
Coparcenary Property alone.

The object of enactment of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as declared by its long title is to
provide for abolition of Zamindari system involving intermediaries between the tiller of
the soil and the State, for acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to reform the

IV
8
Archna v Deputy Director of consolidation(2015)111 ALR 63
law relating to land tenure consequent upon such abolition and acquisition. In order to
secure the purpose of land reform, various provisions have been made to ensure that soil
must go to the actual tiller. The object that soil must go to the actual tiller has been
applied in cases of inheritance and devolution of interest also. Under some contingency
widow and daughter are given right of inheritance but on their remarriage/ marriage, they
are divested under Sec 1729 of the Act. It was kept in mind while enacting Sec 171 and
Sec 17210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that after marriage it would not be practicable for a
woman to cultivate land at two places as such after marriage/remarriage, women are
divested. U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is preserved under Ninth Schedule of the Constitution at
Serial No. 11 and is protected under Article 31-A11 of the Constitution as such its validity
cannot be challenged on the ground of Article 13 of the Constitution. Constitutional
validity of this Act has been upheld time to time by Constitutional Benches of Supreme
Court, in State of U.P. Vs. Raja Brahma Shah12, and S.P. Watel vs. State of U.P13.

Similar was the case in “State of Gujarat v Shivarjsinh Harishchandrasinh” the

amendment in HSA, cannot be automatically extended to agricultural holding or
agriculture land ceilings act, 1960 which is special legislation in which major daughter is
not treated as a independent unit. Here the original computation of surplus land was done

9
Sec 171 of UP act: clearly lays down that in case a male tenure holder dies then his son or his male descendants will
come to inherit his rights in the holding of land. His own daughter and son’s daughter and the descendants of
daughters have been excluded for this purpose.
[(1) When a bhumidhar, [* * or asami who has after the date of vesting, inherited an interest
- *] in
10
Sec 172 of UP act: Succession in the case of a woman holding an interest inherited as a widow, mother,
daughter, etc. any holding-

(a) as a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant, in the male line of descent, mother or father's mother dies,
marries, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof; or

(b) as a daughter, son's daughter, sister or half-sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased
[marries] dies, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof, the holding or the part shall devolve upon the
nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male
bhumidhar,] or asami.]

IV
12
State of U.P. Vs. Raja Brahma Shah 12, AIR 1967
SC 661 13 S.P. Watel Vs. State of U.P, AIR 1973
SC 1293.

IV
 12
On that day, on the basis of male a member that is head of the family along with two sons
the land was divided into 3 units and surplus land was calculated. Two major daughters
who were in the family were not counted as independent units or even members of the
family for the purpose of computation of independent units of land holdings. This order
was challenged in 2002 and decision was decided in 2013.

Post amendment of 2005, the daughters wanted to be included as independent unit and to
be recognized as a coparcener in HJF and amendment has removed the sec 4(2) which
meant that act is applicable to agricultural holding as well.

It was held that there is no automatic application of HSA to agricultural holding and
dismissed the application of the daughters.

2. Whether the revenue department officers acted in an arbitrary manner in disposing

of the claim of the daughter?

The officers of the revenue department UP did not acted in haste and arbitrary manner in
disposing of the matter of Anjali Singh. They analyzed the fine details of both the acts
UPZALR & HSA and came to the conclusion that post amendment HSA will not be
applicable on agricultural landholdings and on the various of sec 4(2) of the hsa. As land
comes under the specific domain of state and any central legislation unless expressly
stated that it will be applicable, it can’t be applied. The central government has to be
competent enough to apply it.

3. Does it lead to gender discrimination by not giving share of agricultural land to the
marriage daughter?

No it does not lead to any gender discrimination as the land should be with actual tillers.
As after the marriage the daughter would go to her in-laws house leaving bare land with
her parents and making their survival difficult. It also won’t be possible for the daughter
to work on both lands simultaneously.

4. Is the writ maintainable?

IV
After going the explanation of the different authorities, the writ is not maintainable and it
should be disposed of by without giving any relief.

IV
 13
PRAYER

Therefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. Uphold the decision of revenue department of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Recognize the sale deed to be valid in favor of Kundan Singh.

or

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

IV