Allowed

State of U.P. Thru Collector Kheri v. Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024WRIC/3000065/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the State's writ petition against an appellate order. The Court set aside the appellate order and the discovery notice under the Ceiling Act, quashing the set-aside of the Prescribed Authority's order. It remitted the issue of land status (irrigated/unirrigated) to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Appellate order dated 31.01.2002 set aside; Prescribed Authority order modified on exemption aspect; matter remitted to Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration on land status within three months.

State of U.P. Thru Collector Kheri Vs Additional… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21138

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000065 of 2005

¶4

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru Collector Kheri Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogesh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of private respondents.

¶7

The State has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority dated 31.01.2002, whereby appeal preferred by the private respondents has been allowed and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 04.01.1999 has been set aside and even notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1960" ) has been quashed.

¶8

Facts in brief of the present case are that notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued on 27.05.1998 to one Udai Raj, original tenure holder proposing to declare 3.233 hectares of land as surplus from his holdings. Udai Raj never appeared before the Prescribed Authority but it seems that notice issued to the original tenure holder was received by his son Paras Nath (respondent no. 2) who filed objections before the Prescribed Authority on 23.07.1998. In his objections it was submitted by Paras Nath that he was the son of the original tenure holder and land recorded in his name has been wrongly clubbed with the land of original tenure holder. Similarly, it was stated that Raghu Nath who was the other son of original tenure holder was major and his lands recorded in his own name was wrongly clubbed with the land of original tenure holder and lastly Nitya Nand who was the son of Amar Nath was minor and as grand son is not described/included in the definition of family, and the holdings recorded in his name, ought to have been excluded from the holdings of original tenure holder.

¶9

Before the Prescribed Authority there was dispute with regard to date of death of original tenure holder. It seems that Udai Raj was missing from his home for sufficient length of

¶10

time and he never returned home and accordingly it was recorded in the death certificate that he died on 05.01.1982. His other son namely Amar Nath also died on 10.07.1987. The Prescribed Authority duly considered the objection filed by the sons and grand son of original tenure holder and excluded 14.533 hectares of land from the holdings of original tenure holder in favour of his two major sons as well as his grand son.

¶11

With regard to issue pertaining to whether the land was irrigated or unirrigated, the Prescribed Authority rejected the objections preferred by the private respondents. While rejecting the objections he has stated that the private respondents had relied upon Form-41 prepared during consolidation operations while finding with regard to the land being irrigated or unirrigated has been done in accordance with the record pertaining to Fasli years 1378-1380 and in case there were any objections in this regard then the same should have been filed before the Prescribed Authority and no such evidence was filed by the respondents disputing the entries made in the revenue record. The Prescribed Authority duly compared the entries regarding the nature of land recorded during the consolidation operations as per Form-41 and compared it with the record of the Fasli year of 1378-1380 and found that there was no material difference. He did not interfere with the status of land which was recorded and consequently rejected the objections.

¶12

The private respondents being aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority, preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. The Appellate Authority questioned the very order passed by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1960, must have been issued much previously to notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 which was issued only on 27.05.1998 and there is no explanation for such delay in issuing such notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960. There is no mention or consideration of the notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1960 and considering that the Prescribed Authority had not considered the points raised by the appellants nor any reasons have been given by the Prescribed Authority in his order, held that the the Prescribed Authority had not exercised his jurisdiction properly and proceeded to set aside the order while allowing the appeal. It not only set aside the order of Prescribed Authority but also held that notice issued under Section 10(2) of the Act was illegal and quashed the same.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the order of Appellate Authority is illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to the record. He has submitted that objections of respondents were infact duly considered and it is only on their submission

¶14

that the Prescribed Authority excluded 14.553 hectares of land in terms of irrigated land from the holdings of the original tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority has dwelled into detail with regard to the fact that two of the sons were major on the cut-off date and accordingly land could not have been clubbed with the holdings of the original tenure holder and the grand son could not have been included in the definition of family and his holdings were also excluded, in this regard objections made by the respondents were duly sustained.

¶15

It is in the aforesaid facts, it has been submitted that the Appellate Authority has wrongly appreciated the facts and held the order of Prescribed Authority to be illegal and arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that though the Appellate Authority has stated that there is no discussion with regard to status of land as to whether it is irrigated or unirrigated, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority indicates that the respondents had not filed any material or documents which can demonstrate that the entries in the said fasli years were incorrect or unreliable. He had observed that status of the land could be determined only as per the provisions of Section 4A of the Act of 1960 and even the onus lies on the respondents to demonstrate that the entries were incorrect or wrongly made. No such material was produced by them and hence no interference was made in the said entries existing in the revenue records, the same it could have been done only on the basis of land record pertaining to Fasli year 1978-1980. Hence, he did not accepted the objections filed by the respondents and has rejected the same.

¶16

Heard learned Standing Counsel as well as perused the record.

¶17

From the perusal of order of Prescribed Authority it is noticed that he has dwelled into all the objections of the respondents and he has excluded 14.553 hectares of land has prayed by the respondents. In this regard no further dispute subsists inasmuch as application of the respondents was allowed and 14.553 hectares of land was excluded from the holdings of the original tenure holder. With regard to controversy regarding irrigated or unirrigated land, the order of Prescribed Authority clearly indicates that he had declined to interfere with the objections filed by the respondents on the ground that they had not filed any objections to the status of land as demonstrated in the Fasli Year 1378-1380. In case they wanted status of the land to be unirrigated then they had to adduce evidence and contradict the findings recorded in the revenue records pertaining to the aforesaid Fasli years, but no such evidence was filed and consequently there was no material

¶18

before the Prescribed Authority to have sustained the objections preferred by the private respondents in this regard.

¶19

The finding of the Appellate Authority that the order of Prescribed Authority is without reasons and discussion, is clearly perverse inasmuch as the Prescribed Authority has duly considered all the objections raised by the private respondents and has given adequate reasons, accordingly order of the Appellate Authority in this regard is also arbitrary and deserves to be interfered with.

¶20

In the light of above, with regard to exclusion of 4.553 hectares of land from the holdings of original tenure holder is sustained to that effect the order of Appellate Authority is set aside. The findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority are interfered with only to the extent that he has refused to interfere with the status of the land as to whether it is irrigated or unirrigated. Accordingly, only on the aspect of status of land the matter is remitted to the Prescribed Authority for consideration afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶21

In the light of above, the appellate order dated 31.01.2002 is set aside. The order of Prescribed Authority is modified and is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders with regard to status of land, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶22

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 A. Verma

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru Collector Kheri v. Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru Collector Kheri v. Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad and 3 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

Sharda Bux Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Food U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. and2 Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru Secy Food and Civil Supply Lko and Ors.

Smt. Noor Jahan and Ors. Vs District Magistrate/Controlling Authority Bahraich and Ors.

Smt.Malti Devi Vs U.P. Cooperative Tribunal U.P. Lucknow and Others

Jagvender Singh and Anr. Vs Additional Commissioner Admin. Lucknow and 2 Ors.

Nageshwar Patel Minor Thru Father Ranvijay Patel Vs State of U.P.