Partly allowed

Manna Lal and Others v. Addl.Commissioner Jhansi and Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2018WRIC/16851/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order declaring certain lands surplus under the U.P. Ceiling Act without hearing them. The High Court held that declaration without hearing violates natural justice and quashed the impugned orders, remanding the matter to the authority for decision after proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders declaring land as surplus were quashed. Matter remanded to authority to decide on or before 31.5.2019 after hearing all parties.

Manna Lal and Others Vs Addl.Commissioner Jhansi and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16851 of 1995

¶3

Petitioner :- Manna Lal & Others Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Jhansi & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.S.Singh,Ram Kishore Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- SC,Om Prakash Chaube,Shravan Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Om Prakash Chaube, learned counsel appearing on behalf of proposed impleader.

¶6

Petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the impugned order by which certain lands have been declared surplus vide order dated 30.9.1994 and 20.5.1995. It is submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the so called surplus land which has been illegally declared to be surplus.Petitioners are the tenure holders of Village Najita, Pargana and Tehsil and District Banda. Petitioner No.1 is the father of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 but during the pendency of the appeal, he has passed away.

¶7

On 11.10.1984, notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act was issued and served upon the erstwhile petitioner No.1 and the other petitioners and they filed their objection before the prescribed authority.

¶8

Both the parties have led their evidence and the objection of the petitioners was partly allowed by the prescribed authority who has given the benefit to the two sons of the petitioner No.1 namely petitioner No.2 and 3. The prescribed authority had recorded the finding that on whole holdings, the petitioner No.1 to 3 have equal shares and their holdings being wrongly included in the notice issued to them but, the Prescribed Authority did not give benefit to petitioner No.4 and in this way it has recorded the finding that petitioner No.2 to 3 were born prior to the abolition of the Zamindari and they have got share but as regard the petitioner No.4 is concerned, since he was minor,

¶9

he has no separate share and in this way it has declared 18 bighas and 7 biswa and 10 biswansis of unirrigated land as surplus.

¶10

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.3.1986, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi who has partly allowed the appeal and recorded finding that petitioner No.4 was also born prior to the abolition of Zamindari so he should have also been equal share over the land and as such the said benefit had not been given to him, the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority to consider the claim of the petitioners. After remand, the prescribed authority has not complied with the order of the Commissioner and has rejected the objections of the petitioners.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in Shantanu Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1979 (5) Alld. HC F.B. 564, Jabar Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut, 1997 Lawsuit (All) 499, Ram Bhajan Vs. Chief Revenue Officer/ Prescribed Authority, Mirzapur, 2001 Lawsuit (All) 398 and Kailash Chandra Vs. Uttar Pradesh, 2007 Lawsuit (All) 22 .

¶12

It is an uncontroverted and admitted position of fact that the orders were passed herein above determining the land of the petitioners to be surplus without they being heard. Though there is prescribed alternative remedy, the Full Bench of this Court in Shantanu Kumar (Supra) has held that land of parties cannot be declared as such surplus for want of hearing and just because the notice was served, it cannot be said that Principle of Natural Justice is made out. The judgment in Ram Bhajan (Supra) will also come to the aid of the petitioner likewise as early as 1970. The Full Bench judgment of this Court which has been considered in Shantanu Kumar (Supra) will also come to the aid of the petitioner.

¶13

In the factual scenario, this petition is accepted and allowed.

¶14

As though separate objections were filed, they were not heard. The appellate authority allowed the appeal but on remand, same order has been passed which has to be quashed, hence, the same is quashed.

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that the land was an irrigated land and the property to the third son is included. Deduction is already made and, therefore, the order cannot be said to be bad. All these aspects have to be considered by the authority concerned who had not heard the petitioners.

¶16

The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to decide the same on or before 31.5.2019 after hearing all the parties.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.9.2018 DKS

Manna Lal and Others v. Addl.Commissioner Jhansi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manna Lal and Others v. Addl.Commissioner Jhansi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sapna Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sameer and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sonam @ Shabnam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Neelam Yadav @ Khusbu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushil Chhavada and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others