Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Bachan Singh and Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2024WRIC/3000012/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner-State challenged a lease cancellation order allowing respondents to recover land wrongly allotted as surplus. With respondent allottees absent, the High Court found the recovery legitimate and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the State of U.P. challenging the cancellation of allotment is dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Bachan Singh and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39641

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000012 of 1997 Petitioner :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Bachan Singh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Om Singh,S.P.Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

By means of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- State of U.P. has challenged the validity of an order dated 19.04.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No. 695/89-90 under Sections 27(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'Ceiling Act'), whereby an application under Section 27(4) of Ceiling Act, filed by the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 was allowed.

¶7

The opposite parties no. 1 to 4 had stated in the application filed by them under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act that they have been held to be Sirdar of the land in question by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) under Section 14(3) of the Ceiling Act and the land in dispute had been excluded from their surplus area by means of an order dated 27.12.1974. By virtue of the amendment made in Section 130 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms. Act, 1950, all the Sirdari have become Bhumidhars by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms( Amendment) Act w.e.f from 28.01.1977. However, as entry of this fact was not made

¶8

in the revenue records due to inaction of State Government officials, land in question had wrongly been allotted in favour of the opposite parties no. 5 to 25. The opposite parties no. 1 to 4 prayed that leases executed in favour of the opposite parties no. 5 to 25 be cancelled.

¶9

The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow has recorded in the impugned order dated 19.04.1995 that the District Governemnt Counsel (Revenue) had given an application dated 08.05.1994 seeking two weeks' time to file objections against the application, but no objection was filed by the State. Notices issued to the opposite parties no. 5 to 25 had been returned with separate endorsements like the person does not reside in the village, the parentage has wrongly been mentioned or that the person has gone away to Punjab. Thereafter, notice was published in a newspaper yet none of the opposite parties no. 5 to 25 appeared before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial).

¶10

In these circumstances, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) held that the contention of the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 that the Prescribed Authority has been declared to be Sirdar of the land in question by means of an order dated 27.12.1974 and the land has been excluded from the surplus land, remained uncontroverted and thereby impliedly admitted by the subsequent allottees of the surplus land. When the land had been executed from the surplus land of the petitioner, no lease deed in respect of the same could have been executed. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) cancelled the allotment of land in question made in favour of the opposite parties no. 5 to 25.

¶11

The opposite parties no. 5 to 25 , who had been allotted land of the opposite parties no. 1 to 4, wrongly treating the same to

¶12

be surplus land under the Ceiling Act, had not appeared before the Additional Commissioner and even after issuance of notice, they have not appeared before this Court also.

¶13

The allottees- opposite parties no. 5 to 25 have not come forward to challenge the order dated 19.04.1995 cancelling the allotment made and lease deed executed in their favour.

¶14

In these circumstances, the contention of the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 that the land had been excluded from their surplus land and it has wrongly been allotted to the opposite parties no. 5 to 25, remains uncontroverted.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 19.04.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No. 695/89-90 under Sections 27(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 Preeti.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Bachan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Bachan Singh 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

B. Ishwari Prasad Verma Trust Aminabad Lucknow Thru Secy. Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.14 Lucknow and Anr.

M/S Raju Cement Store Oel through Its Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes U.P.Commercial Tax

Vikas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Vijai Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector Barabanki and 2 Ors.

District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies and Anr. Vs D.J. Hardoi and 2 Ors.

Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj, Lucknow and Others