Partly allowed

Shafiq Ahmad Khan and Others v. Additional Commissioner Judicial and Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022WRIC/3000017/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, holding that the Appellate Authority impermissibly ignored record evidence regarding reduced land area post-consolidation. The order dated 20.01.1992 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to reconsider the surplus land claim using Form CH 23.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the claim regarding reduction in land area in consolidation proceedings using Form CH 23.

Shafiq Ahmad Khan and Others Vs Additional Commissioner… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000017 of 1993

¶3

Petitioner :- Shafiq Ahmad Khan And Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Judicial And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Ahmad Jamal

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.01.1992 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Opposite Party No.1 under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to 'Act 1960'), by which the appeal was only partly allowed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were having land measuring 27.966 Acres. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to the father of the petitioners Abdul Wahid Khan (now dead) to show cause why 9.92 acres of land be not declared as surplus.

¶7

During the pendency of the proceeding, the father of the petitioner Abdul Wahid Khan had expired leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs, who were substituted in place of deceased Abdul Wahid Khan.

¶8

In the objections two points have been taken by the petitioners, firstly, there are five members in the family and all three sons are major, so they are entitled for the benefit of Section 5(3)A of the Act 1960 and Secondly, in the consolidation proceedings the area has been reduced and in support of their submissions, the copy of CH Form 23 was enclosed before the Prescribed Authority. The objections preferred by the petitioners was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and declared 9.92 acres of land as surplus vide its order dated 17.02.1988.

¶9

Against the order of the prescribed authority dated 17.02.1988, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed vide order dated 20.01.1992, by remanding the matter to the prescribed authority.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the claim of the petitioners regarding reduction in area in the consolidation proceeding has been rejected by the Appellate Authority by giving a finding that no evidence has been adduced in support of their submission. The said finding by the Appellate Authority is perverse as Form CH23 was on the

¶11

record, which was mentioned in the order of the Prescribed Authority as well. It is further submitted that the evidence adduced by the petitioners was not seen by the Appellate Authority and was totally ignored and denied to declare on the issue of benefit admissible to the petitioners after the consolidation proceedings by which the area has been reduced.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his submission that the matter may be remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the issue relating to the plea of consolidation proceedings in which the area has been reduced afresh.

¶13

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 20.01.1992 passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad.

¶14

Considering the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the finding given by the Appellate Authority that there was no evidence adduced by the petitioners for claiming the benefit of reduction in land area in the consolidation proceedings is not found to be correct as Form CH 23 discussed by the Prescribed Authority in its order, meaning thereby the said form was before the Appellate Authority at the time of passing of the order dated 20.01.1992.

¶15

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition is hereby partly allowed only in respect the claim of the petitioner regarding reduction in area of land in consolidation proceeding and to this extent the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider this issue afresh in accordance with law taking into account Form CH 23 which is on the record. To the extent mentioned above, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.01.1992 is set aside.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 S. Kumar

¶17

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.09.23 14:54:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shafiq Ahmad Khan and Others v. Additional Commissioner Judicial and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafiq Ahmad Khan and Others v. Additional Commissioner Judicial and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gyanmati Vs Commissioner Faizabad Mandal and 6 Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 14 Others

Adarsh Jaiswal Thru. His Mother Reno Jaiswal Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and 3 Others

Prabhakar Singh Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lukcnow and Another

Mirza Irfan Beg Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Govt.of Up Lucknow and Ors.

Harinam Vs Commissioner Division Lko and Anr.