Remanded

Trijugi Narain v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC20 May 2022WRIC/3000064/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders passed by the prescribed and appellate authorities regarding land ceiling proceedings. Doing so, it found that the notice was invalidly served on a minor grandson, who falls outside the statutory definition of 'family', and the authorities considered a different land area than notified without following proper objection procedures.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 22nd August, 2003 and 17th April, 2004 set aside and matter remanded to prescribed authority to decide afresh after issuing proper notice and calling objections.

Trijugi Narain Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 2 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000064 of 2004

¶3

Petitioner :- Trijugi Narain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue And 2 Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Singh,R.D.Shahi,Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22nd August, 2003 passed by the prescribed authority as well as the order dated 17th July, 2004 passed by the appellate authority.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prescribed authority has passed the order dated 22nd August, 2003 behind back of the petitioner as no notice was ever issued against the petitioner prior to 22nd August, 2003 as provided under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960'). He also added that as soon as this fact came into knowledge with the petitioner, he moved an application for recall of the order dated 22nd August, 2003 on 05.09.2003 which was decided vide order dated 31.01.2004 by the prescribed authority. He submits that the petitioner has specifically mentioned in recall application that the notice was never served upon the petitioner and ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner. Perusal of the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 22nd August, 2003, it is

¶9

evident that the petitioner was not associated with the aforesaid proceeding.

¶10

He further argued that since as per the statement of the respondent/State, notices were served upon the grandson which is an admitted fact but so far as due mode of service of notice is concerned that envisaged under Rule 9 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1961') wherein the procedures have been prescribed for serving of the notice. The aforesaid Rule 9 of Rules 1961 is being quoted as hereinunder:

¶11

" 9. Section 44(2)(a).- The notice under Rule 8 may be served either-

¶12

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served, or

¶13

(b) delivering it to his agent, executor, administrator or any adult member of his family, or

¶14

(d) by sending it by registered post, addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode, and

¶15

(e) in case of an incorporated company or society, by sending it by registered post, addressed to the secretary or other principal functionary of the company or society or by delivery or affixing at its principal office."

¶16

He submits that as per the Rule 9 of the Rules, 1961, the notices are to be delivered to agent, executor, administrator or any adult member of his family. Even after assuming that aforesaid notice was served on grandson that too against the mandate of the Section 3(7) of the Act, 1960. He also argued that there is definition clause under Section 3 (7) of 'Act 1960' wherein family has been defined. He submits that the minor grandson is not covered under definition of family as has been envisaged in Section 3 (7) of 'Act, 1960'.

¶17

The Section 3(7) of the 'Act, 1960' is being quoted hereinunder;

¶18

Section 3(7)- "Family" in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters);

¶19

Apart from the aforesaid, he has also argued and indicated that under order dated 22nd August, 2003, the prescribed authority did not see the Khasra of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli while deciding the issue of irrigated and unirrigated land.

¶20

He has also argued that notice itself is defective as notice was issued under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 with regard to the area 16.872 hectare of land and the prescribed authority while passing the order dated 22nd August, 2003 has considered and decided the land considering the area of 19.165 hectare.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 22nd August, 2003 as well as the order dated 31.01.2004 passed by appellate authority assails illegality and infirmity and vitiates in the eyes of law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention and submits that from perusal of the order dated 22nd August, 2003, it is evident that the grandfather was there when notice was served upon the grandson and as such it was very well clear regarding knowledge of service of the notice.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the State has also

¶24

submitted that other mode of service is not required as there was sufficient service of notice and it was within the knowledge of the tenure holder. He further argued that petitioner did not mention in recall application with regard to the receiver, who is said to be minor son of the family.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, it is evident that notice was served upon grandson and there is specific provision for service of notice and it cannot be violated by the State authority as it is settled proposition of law that service of notice on a minor cannot be accepted. Further so far as the issue with regard to the definition of family as has been raised by the petitioner is concerned, find strength as the grandson does not come under the definition of family as has been provided under Section 3(7) of 'Act, 1960'. It is an admitted fact that the same is served upon grandson that disclosed that the service of the notice is not sufficient. Further, it is also considerable while going through the order passed by the prescribed authority that notice has become defective as the area of the land which was considered for the purpose of ceiling was different than which was mentioned in the notice by the prescribed authority. Further while deciding the issue with regard to irrigated and unirrigated land, the mandate of Section 4(A) of the Act, 1960 has been violated.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and settled proposition of law, the order dated 22nd August, 2003 passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 17th April, 2004 passed by appellate authority are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the prescribed authority to decide the matter afresh after

¶27

issuing notice under Section 10(2) of the' Act, 1960' thereby calling objections to the concerned parties, strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed off .

¶29

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 A.Kr*

¶30

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.05.24 17:39:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Trijugi Narain v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trijugi Narain v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 2 Ors.

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

Sri Brij Kishore Vs State of U.P. and Others

Gurdyal Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt.Dropadi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Chandra Tiwari @ Rajole and Another Vs Addl. District Judge Court No. 7 Distt. Unnao and Others

Mata Prasad Misra Vs District Judge Rae Bareli and 2 Ors.

Smt. Bhanumati and 6 Ors. Vs I Additional District Judge Faizabad and 9 Ors.