Allowed

Baldeo Singh v. Addl. Commissioner Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2024WRIC/3000051/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged rejection of ceiling-law objections filed 14 years late by an auction purchaser never served notice under the ceiling proceedings. Finding mandatory notice provisions violated and authorities' failure to consider condonation grounds, the court set aside both orders, condoned the delay, and remanded for merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; delay condoned; objections remanded to Prescribed Authority to decide on merits; interim protection continues till decision.

Baldeo Singh Vs Addl. Commissioner Lko. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34034

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000051 of 1996

¶4

Petitioner :- Baldeo Singh Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.Sahai,Ashok Kumar,Devendra Pratap Singh,Hari Om Singh,Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Gopal Krishna Pathak, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3.

¶7

Opposite parties 4, 5 and 6 are reported to be proforma parties. Even otherwise, no-one has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.05.1990 passed under Section 11(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) whereby objections filed by petitioner under Section 11(2) of the Act have been rejected as being time barred. Also under challenge is appellate order dated 27.04.1996 rejecting petitioner's Appeal.

¶9

It has been submitted that the properties in question as indicated in the objections under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 were in the recorded tenure-ship of one Prithvi Pal Singh who fell in arrears of Land Revenue resulting in auction of the properties on 29.11.1961 by the Collector, Kheri. Petitioner participated in the auction which was confirmed in their favour with sale certificates being issued to petitioner on 01.09.1964, 04.01.1964 and 05.06.1964. It is submitted that subsequently mutation was also effected in favour of petitioner and his predecessor in interest which was reflected in Khatauni for years 1370 to 1372 Fasli. It has also been submitted that in

¶10

pursuance of the sale certificates, petitioner was put into possession over the property in question with their names also being reflected in C.H. Form 45 during consolidation operations.

¶11

It is submitted that however ignoring aforesaid aspects, notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to aforesaid Prithvi Pal Singh culminating in order dated 29.05.1971 by the Prescribed Authority whereby the properties in question stood declared surplus with regard to Prithvi Pal Singh.

¶12

It is submitted that upon coming to know of aforesaid order subsequently, petitioner filed objections under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 on 19.09.1985 along with an application for condonation of delay indicating the factors which prevented them from raising such objections prior thereto. It is submitted that cogent and sufficient reasons were indicated in the Application for condonation of delay for preferring the objections beyond the stipulated time limit.

¶13

Learned counsel has adverted to provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 as well as Rule 8 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961) to submit that it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have issued separate notices under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1960 to all those persons who were not only recorded as tenure-holders but were in actual cultivatory possession of the properties and since in pursuance of the auction conducted by the State Government itself, petitioner had been inducted into possession over the properties in question and were duly recorded in the revenue records at the relevant time, separate notices to them were required mandatorily to be issued under Rule 8 of Rules of 1961 while

¶14

issuing the C.L.H. Form 4. It is submitted that therefore there was violation of mandatory statutory provisions while passing order dated 29.05.1971, which is a factor not considered by the Prescribed Authority while rejecting petitioner's application for condonation of delay. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: -

¶15

(1) Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. and others , reported in 1979 (5) ALR 564 (FB) [a Full Bench decision of this Court]; and

¶16

(2) Mahfuzul Rahman v. State of U.P. reported in - [a decision of a coordinate Bench],

¶17

Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a bare perusal of the Application for condonation of delay will indicate that no cogent explanation has been furnished by petitioner for submitting their objections under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 after a period of almost 14 years from the date of passing of order dated 29.05.1971 whereafter possession also was transferred and taken by the State Government and therefore it is impossible that petitioner did not know about order dated 29.05.1971 as has been rightly indicated in the order impugned. It has also been submitted that even otherwise the auction itself was in violation of provisions of Section 154 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and since petitioner is claiming under void instruments, therefore, also their objections were not maintainable under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960. Learned counsel has further submitted that once notification under Section 14 of the Act of 1960 has already been issued and possession of properties has been taken, objections under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 even otherwise were not maintainable.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that initial notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to Prithvi Pal Singh and no notice was issued to petitioner . Aforesaid proceedings were thereafter decided by order dated 29.05.1971 whereafter it has been submitted that possession of the properties in question were taken by the authorities.

¶19

In the application for condonation of delay dated 19.09.1985, it has been stated that the properties in question were purchased in auction conducted by the State Government by the predecessor in interest of petitioner whereafter some of them passed away whereby the properties devolved upon petitioner. It has also been submitted that record operations were conducted in the Village in 1373 Fasli whreafter petitioner was recorded as tenure holders on the properties in question and subsequently due to notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953), preliminary measurements were done by the consolidation staff and it was only during the process of consolidation operations that on 17.09.1985, petitioner came to know about the aforesaid proceedings when Tehsil report was received whereafter petitioner filed aforesaid application.

¶20

A perusal of impugned order dated 21.05.1990 indicates the reasoning that once order dated 29.05.1971 had been passed and Gazette notification in pursuance thereof had also been issued whereby possession of properties has been taken by the State Government itself, delay of 14 years does not appear to be cogent since objections were required to be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of passing of the order. Similar reasoning has been taken by the appellate authority as well.

¶21

It is quite evident that the authorities have not considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay to the effect that petitioner came to be recorded over the properties in question during record operations in year 1373 Fasli and that preliminary measurement work was being done by the consolidation staff in pursuance of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1953. The pleadings as indicated in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the Application for Condonation of Delay have not been considered at all.

¶22

There is another aspect of the matter which would require interference by this Court in the orders impugned. Proceedings under the Ceiling Act are initiated in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1960 whereafter in case the tenure-holder fails to submit a report, proceedings under section 10 are undertaken by the authorities concerned by issuing a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act. Rule 8 of the Rules 1961 clearly stipulates that a notice in C.L.H. Form 3 is also required to be issued to persons who ostensibly hold the properties under notice. The provision is couched in mandatory terms that the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon such other person a notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 why the statement indicated in C.L.H. Forms 2 and 3 should not be taken as correct.

¶23

The provisions of Section 10 of the Act also mandate a notice to be served upon every tenure-holder in such manner as may be prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 10. The term 'tenure-holder' has been described in Section 3(17) and means a person who is the holder of a holding. The term 'holding' has also been defined in Section 3(9) of the Act of 1960 to mean the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami in terms of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950.

¶24

It is relevant to indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings initiated under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960, written statement had been filed on behalf of the State Government in which the fact of the properties being auctioned by the State and the petitioner being auction purchaser has been admitted with a further submission that sale certificates were issued in favour of petitioner.

¶25

Although an objection has now been raised that the sale certificates issued in favour of petitioner was against provisions of Section 154 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act but there is no indication as to whether any proceedings were held for cancellation of the aforesaid sale certificates admittedly issued in favour of petitioner. The aspect of petitioner being recorded tenure-holder over the properties in question in pursuance of the auction proceedings has also not been denied.

¶26

In view of aforesaid, it is quite evident from material on record that as on the date of issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960, the petitioner being auction purchaser was the tenure-holder of the properties in question and therefore was entitled mandatorily to be issued separate notices under Section 10 of the Act, if required. Such a course of action having not been taken, render the proceedings vitiated.

¶27

Learned State Counsel has raised an objection that objections under Section 11(2) of the Act were not maintainable in view of the fact that notification under Section 14 of the Act had already been issued.

¶28

The aforesaid aspect has already been considered by Full Bench of this Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Civil Judge Bijnor and others reported in 1969 ALL. L.J. 556

¶29

whereby it has been specifically held that objections under sections 11(2) of the Act are maintainable irrespective of any notification under Section 14 of the Act.

¶30

In view of discussions made herein above, it is quite evident that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the appellate authority has considered the aforesaid aspects which were mandatorily required to be.

¶31

In view of aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 21.05.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No.70/71/72/3/2/11989-90 and the appellate order dated 27.04.1996 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider petitioner's objection under Section 11(2) of the Act on its merits condoning the delay.

¶32

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own cost.

¶33

Interim protection granted to petitioner by virtue of order dated 27.06.1996 passed in this petition shall continue to govern the proceedings till its decision.

¶34

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 kvg/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Baldeo Singh v. Addl. Commissioner Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldeo Singh v. Addl. Commissioner Lko. 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

Achal Gupta Objection Filed Vs Asstt.Commissioner Stamp Sandila Hardoi and Others

Awadesh Kumar Awasthi Stamp Objection Filed Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad and Others

Akhilesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Tirath Singh and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner and Others

M/S Jb Daruka Papers Ltd. 1A Industrial Area,Sitapur Thru. Managing Director Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Pinky vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others