Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous review application seeking review of a judgment. It held that the plea that major sons required separate notice was not taken earlier and was raised for the first time in a supplementary affidavit, deserving no review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13047
Court No. - 4
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 69 of 2023
Applicant :- Preetam Singh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Revenue U.P. Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avadhesh Kumar,Jagdish Prasad Maurya
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
"18. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sons of the petitioner had become major and after consolidation proceedings, they were alloted separate holdings, therefore notice was required to be given to them also but the notice was not given to them, therefore the impugned order is not tenable. Perusal of the objection filed by the petitioner on 06.03.1995 against the notice indicates that no such plea was taken by the petitioner. Even in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the prescribed authority before the appellate authority on 11.04.1997,this plea was not taken. Even in this petition and the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not taken this plea. For the first time in the supplementary affidavit filed on 23.11.2022, it has been stated that both the sons of the petitioner have got separate chaks, they are major and separate tenure holders and are entitled to get 7.30 hectare each under the Ceiling Act. This plea has been taken without disclosing as to when they became major and got separate chaks and how during lifetime of petitioner. Form 45 filed by the petitioner, though indicates the name of the sons of the petitioner, namely Gurmeet Singh and Paramjeet Singh having their separate chaks but it does not indicate as to when these have been prepared, whereas these have been got issued on 18.10.2022. On a specific query being put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to when the consolidation proceedings had taken place and the name of the sons of the petitioners were recorded separately, he had stated that the
consolidation had taken place in the year 1998 and the name of sons of the petitioner were recorded separately. The prescribed authority had decided the case by means of the order dated 11.04.1997. Therefore it is apparent that at the time of start of proceedings as per Section 29 of the Act of 1960 or even by the time of passing of the order by the prescribed authority, the name of the sons of the petitioner were not recorded separately. Therefore the plea that the sons of the petitioner were separate tenure holder in terms of Section 3(17) of the Act of 1960 and required separate notice was not taken, therefore now at this stage it cannot be taken, even otherwise it is mis- conceived and not tenable. A query was also put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how during life time of the petitioner, the name of the sons of the petitioner have been recorded separately, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to give any answer to it. "
(Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 13.2.2024/Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed regarding the omission to join major sons as separate tenure holders prompting a review of the arrest order.
Preetam Singh
State Of U.P.
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
