Dismissed¶34

Shyam Kumar Anand v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025WRIC/3000051/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 3000051 of 2005; Jaspreet Singh, J.; decided 02.12.2025. Keywords: U.P. Imposition of Land Ceiling Act 1960; Section 13 appeal; ceiling proceedings order dated 20.06.1963 declaring 124.29 acres surplus; remand and reassessment finding 29.61 acres surplus; ten acres grove grant of 1966; order dated 10.11.1975; Prescribed Authority order dated 02.07.1985; appellate order dated 16.06.2005 directing correction of revenue entries; deceased tenure holder Seth Sita Ram; lease holders Ram Prasad and Bashir; legal heirs brought on record 20.03.2024; no counter-affidavit filed; writ petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶34

Shyam Kumar Anand Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by respondent no.2 (allowing the Section 13 appeal, setting aside the Prescribed Authority's order dated 02.07.1985 and directing correction of entries) is liable to interference at the instance of the petitioner, successor of Seth Sita Ram.

¶26

Court's answer

In the given factual circumstances, no error was committed by the appellate court in remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries; the writ petition is devoid of merit.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

It remained undisputed that the petitioner is the successor of Seth Sita Ram and that upon Sita Ram's death the names of his heirs, necessarily including the petitioner, had to be incorporated in the revenue records.

¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioner could not give any cogent reason as to how he was aggrieved by the appellate authority's direction to correct the entries, or why the instant writ petition was filed.ratio¶26
The submission of the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 that their names were recorded, possession was granted and a grove planted cannot be accepted, since the impugned order contains a categoric finding that the lease holders were not given possession, which remained with Seth Sita Ram who had planted his grove.ratio¶32
The findings in the appellate court's order operate against the alleged lease holders including Bashir, yet neither Bashir nor any other alleged lease holder challenged the order dated 16.06.2005 by filing a writ petition; this furnishes an independent reason to discard their submission.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land ceiling — U.P. Imposition of Land Ceiling Act, 1960, S. 13 — appellate authority (respondent no.2) by order dated 16.06.2005 allowed the appeal of lease holder Ram Prasad and set aside the Prescribed Authority's order dated 02.07.1985, which, instead of correcting entries after the death of tenure holder Seth Sita Ram (granted ten acres in 1966 for a grove; grove planted and possession with him per Lekhpal reports), had again incorporated the dead man's name — writ petition by Seth Sita Ram's successor dismissed: petitioner could not show aggrievement since incorporation of the heirs' names (including his own) was inevitable; private respondents/legal heirs filed no counter-affidavit in two decades and never challenged the findings recorded against them; no error found in the appellate order; no order as to costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3000051 of 2005

Shyam Kumar Anand

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling And 12 Ors.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Avadhesh Ku V.K.Srivastava,	mar, Vijai B	Ankur ahadur	Shukla, Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Ajaiy	Kumar	Mishr	a, Amit
	Kumar Pathak,	Ashok	Kumar	, Dharm
	Trivedi, G.D.P	andey,	G.K.	Pandey,
	Raja Babu Gup Kumar Jaiswal	ta, S.K	.Tripath	i, Vijay

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents except Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel who is representing the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 Bashir.

¶12

The record would indicate that the private respondents no.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 had expired during the pendency of the proceedings and upon an application moved by the petitioner to bring the legal heirs on record, which was allowed on 20.03.2024, the legal heirs of the deceased respondents are on record. As already noticed above, none put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents despite the names of number learned counsel having been shown in the additional cause list as counsel for the private respondents.

¶13

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby upon an appeal preferred by one Ram Prasad (predecessor in interest of the private respondents no.4 to 7) under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Land Ceiling Act, 1960, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 02.07.1985 was set aside and a direction

¶14

WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005

¶15

¶16

was issued to correct the entries. This order passed in appeal dated 16.06.2025 came to be assailed by the present petitioner.

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the Act of 1960 were initiated against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner Seth Sita Ram. Upon the commencement of ceiling proceedings vide order dated 20.06.1963, 124.29 acre of land was declared surplus. Seth Sita Ram preferred an appeal against the said order which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to be decided afresh in light of the observations made by the appellate court.

¶18

After remand the land was further assessed and this time 29.61 acres of land was found to be surplus. It is in the interregnum that Seth Sita Ram expired. Wife of Seth Sita Ram moved an application indicating to the Prescribed Authority that her husband Seth Sita Ram had expired and as he was also granted ten acres of land for planting a grove in the year 1966 and vide order dated 10.11.1975 the name of Seth Sita Ram was required to be incorporated but the name of Seth Sita Ram had not been incorporated in the revenue records, as a consequence, the said land became the subject matter of lease being granted to the private respondents. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 02.07.1985 in stead of correcting the entries once again committed a mistake of incorporating the name of Seth Sita Ram who had already expired.

¶19

While passing the order the Prescribed Authority did not realize that Seth Sita Ram had already expired and it was his wife who had come forward to get the name incorporated. The impact of the order dated 02.07.1985 was that inadvertently the name of certain lease holders were incorporated that was struck down and name of Seth Sita Ram was to be incorporated.

¶20

It is in this backdrop that one of the lase holders, namely, Ram Prasad had preferred an appeal and even before the appellate court three facts clearly emerged: (i) Seth Sita Ram was granted ten acres of land in the year 1966; (ii) Seth Sita Ram had expired; (iii) Seth Sita

¶21

WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005

¶22

¶23

Ram in pursuance of the lease granted in 1966 had already planted his grove and this was also verified by the reports of the Lekhpal.

¶24

In the aforesaid backdrop, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate court noticed the aforesaid three facts and found that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 02.07.1985 was liable to be set aside and after quashing the said order direction was issued to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries. It is this order which is under challenge at the behest of the petitioner.

¶25

Shri Verma learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order could not dispute the fact that in so far as the petitioner is concerned he being the successor of Seth Sita Ram and upon the death of Sita Ram the name of his heirs had to be incorporated, which necessarily would include the petitioner himself.

¶26

Since the appellate authority had directed the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries then how the petitioner would be aggrieved was a question posed to Shri Verma who made a feeble attempt but could not give any cogent reason as to why the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

¶27

Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 submitted that their name was recorded. They were granted the possession and the respondents had planted a grove. A specific query was put to Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel to indicate from the record as to how he substantiates his aforesaid submissions. He also made a feeble attempt but he was apparently handicapped for the reason that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

¶28

This Court notices that the writ petition is pending before this Court since 2005 and two decades have gone by and yet the private respondents have not filed their counter-affidavit.

¶29

Be that as it may, the submission of Shri Ashok Kumar also does not find favour for the simple reason that in the order impugned dated

¶30

WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005

¶31

¶32

16.06.2005, there is a categoric finding that the lease holders were not given the possession rather the same was with Seth Sita Ram who had planted his grove. In this view of the matter, the submission of Shri Ashok Kumar cannot be accepted.

¶33

There is another reason for discarding his submission and i.e. if at all these findings were there in the order dated 16.06.2005 which is contrary to the right as asserted by the lease holders including Bashir, then apparently Bashir should have also been aggrieved as the findings recorded in the order of the Appellate Court are against them, which has not been challenged by Bashir or any other alleged lease holder by filing a writ petition.

¶34

Since none of the lease holders have come forward to assail this and has already noticed above, the counsel for the petitioner also could not justify the reason why the petitioner has filed this writ and in the given factual circumstances, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the appellate court while remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries, hence for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶36

December 2, 2025

¶37

ank

¶38

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Kumar Anand v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kumar Anand v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Shanker Tripathi vs Lucknow Development Authority Thru Its Vice Chairman, Lucknow

C/M Nepal Singh Mahavidyalay Thru. Manager Nirbhay Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Ajit Ghulati vs Smt. Susmita Seth

Ajay vs Gopal Chandra Nigam and 6 Others

Smt. Akhtar Jahan Begum vs Waqf Mirza Abid Ali Beg (Waqf Alal Aulad), Waqf No.52, Ex.-Ii Thru. Mutawalli Riyaz Ahmad and Ors.

Surendra Pratap Singh and Another vs Rajan Singh and Another