Partly allowed

Ram Samukh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019WRIC/34856/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging inclusion of excluded land in ceiling proceedings and non-crediting of consolidation reductions. Court held specific findings on cause of reduction were missing. Petition allowed; matter remanded to lower court to determine benefit eligibility based on reduction cause.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; matter remanded to Lower Appellate Court to examine cause of land reduction in consolidation proceedings for ceiling benefit determination.

Ram Samukh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34856 of 1995 Petitioner :- Ram Samukh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.P.Mishra, Harbansh Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri H.P. Pandey, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 31.10.1994 and 15.11.1995 passed by respondents-2 and 3 respectively.

¶7

Only two grounds have been raised, firstly that land of Smt. Paijani and Smt. Sukhrani, inherited and acquired on their own, could not have been included in the tenure of petitioner, and, secondly, reduction in consolidation proceedings in the area of land ought to have been given due credit in ceiling proceedings in the light of this Court's Judgment in Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 1979 All.L.J. 1259 , wherein this Court held that the cases where pending proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1960”) a reduction in area of holding of a tenure-holder was brought about in proceedings, under U.P. consolidation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”) such reduction must be taken into account in determining the ceiling area.

¶8

However, I find that so far as land of Smt. Paijani is concerned, her claim of separate holding was not accepted by Additional Commissioner, respondent-3, in his earlier judgment dated 20.06.1990 and her appeal was rejected observing as under:

¶9

^^tgka rd lhj[kqndk'r dh Hkwfe esa Jherh istkuh nsoh ds fdlh

¶10

fgLls dk iz'u gS bl lEcU/k ea KkrO; gS fd fgUnw ds vuqlkj dsoy

¶11

¶12

yM+dksa ,oa yM+ds ds yM+dksa dks ftudk tehUnkjh fouk'k ds iwoZ gks tkrk gks] mUgha dk fgLlk gksrk gSA fL+=;ks dks blesa fdlh izdkj dk gd o fgLlk ugha izkIr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa istkuh nsoh dh vihy esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA**

¶13

“As far as any share of Pejani Devi in the land of Shirkhudkasht is concerned, it is worthy of note that only sons and their sons in Hindu religion whose births take place before abolition of Zamindari have share. Females do not have any right and share in it. In such a situation, there is no substance in the appeal filed by Pejani Devi.”

¶14

(English Translation by Court)

¶15

In respect to Sukhrani also, it was found that she got the land through a sale-deed but after that land was succeeded by legal heirs and therefore the claim of exclusion of land of Sukhrani was also no found tenable.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner could not show any perversity in the aforesaid finding. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere on this score.

¶17

Now coming to second aspect, I find that Additional Commissioner in his judgment dated 20.06.1990 himself has accepted in para 4 and 5 that if there is any reduction in area of land in consolidation proceeding due to valuation, the benefit will be given to tenure holder in ceiling proceedings and if reduction is on account of title, no benefit shall be given, but thereafter, whether the land of petitioner was reduced due to valuation or title, no specific finding has been given and this issue has remained untouched and unanswered.

¶18

In view thereof, matter is remanded to Lower Appellate Court to examine the question as to whether reduction in land due to consolidation preceding belong to petitioner's holding was liable to be given benefit under Act, 1960 or not and thereafter final determination of area of land surplus shall be made.

¶19

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 10.12.2019 PS

Ram Samukh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Samukh v. State of U.P. 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. Satadeyee Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kashi Nath and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Subhash Mitra Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sumit Awasthi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Paijani Devi Vs State

M/S Bonded Excise Ware House Varanasi Vs Sharda and Others