Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22260 of 1987 Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Singh Sri D.P. Singh Sri Kunal Ravi Singh Sri V.K.S.Chaudhary Sri V.P.Pathak Counsel for the Respondent: S.C. (A). U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960-Section 10-Notice declaring surplus land issued on 17.11.83-questioned on ground after expiry of two years from the date of enforcement of Act-even on amended Act-Notice impugned after 8 years not proper-held-section 9(1) contemplates general notice-Section 9 (2-A) requires statement of those who had not subjected to any notice earlierpetitioner never submitted any declaration-continued his possessioncan not be allowed to take plea of limitation . Held; Para 22 This Court, therefore, records that the plea that the notice under Section 10(2) being not issued within reasonable time i. e. 2 would render the proceedings bad years does not appeal to the Court in the facts of the case. The petitioner himself failed to carry out the requirements of Section 9(1) or 9(2) by not filing his statement within the time provided under the said section. (B). U.P. Imposition of ceiling on land holding Act 1960-Section-4-A-irrigatednon irrigated plots-authorities specifically held the plot in question under command area of Betwa Canalgoes to show the irrigated plots non availability of Khasra entries of 1378, 1379 and 1380 fasli-not mean that authority can not determined such issue-in said back ground non availability of entries of Khasra-not of much relevance. Held: Para 24 It may be recorded that the relevant Khasras of 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli were not brought on record by the petitioner or by the state. It was not the case of the petitioner that such Khasra entries were available and/or be examined. Section 4-A of Act, 1960 require consideration of the aforesaid Khasras entries and such other records, as may be considered necessary, as well as for spot inspection being made for determination as to whether a particular plot of land is irrigated or not. Merely because the Khasras entries of 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli were not on record/not available, it will not mean that the Prescribed Authority could not have determined the issue qua the plots being irrigated or not with reference to the other material on record. It has been found as a matter of fact that the Plot Nos. 169 and 172 were situate within the command area of Betwa Canal, which was Schedule-I canal. Reference to Khasra entries of 1388, 1389 and 1390 Fasli is not of much relevance in the said factual background. Case law discussed: (2003) 7SCC 667; (1976) 2 SCC 181; 1997 (88) RD 385
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others 469 (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.) 1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate and Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. Nobody is present for the respondent no. 4. 2. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 31.01.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960) as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13.11.1987 dismissing the appeal. 3. Before adverting to the facts of the petition it is appropriate to record that the present writ petition was dismissed under a judgment dated 08th May, 2007. The petitioner made a review application, which was granted by the Hon'ble Judge on 06th February, 2009 and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Hence this petition has again been placed for hearing before this Court. 4. Fact in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued by the Prescribed Authority on 17.11.1983, which was duly served upon the petitioner indicating that the tenure holder had 8.1 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Petitioner filed objections to the aforesaid notice, which contained three basic objections i. e. (a) that the notice has been issued to the petitioner only on 17.11.1983 when such proceedings under Section 10(2) should have been initiated within reasonable time, as no period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act, 1960 for the purpose, this reasonable period cannot extend to nearly 8 years to be counted from the date amendments were introduced in the Act, 1960 by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976. (b) that a sale deed dated 27.11.1971 was executed by the petitioner with the permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The same was a bona fide transaction and therefore the land so transferred was liable to be excluded. (c) Plot Nos. 169 and 172 had wrongly been shown as irrigated. It was also stated that 12.19 acres of land was exclusively recorded in the name of Brij Kishore, who had not been issued notice under Rule 8. In order to keep the record straight it may be recorded that Sri Brij Kishore filed an independent objection claiming a right over Gata No. 65. Brij Kishore has been impleaded as respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition. 5. The Prescribed Authority, after recording the evidence and after considering the case pleaded by the parties, vide order dated 31.01.1985 held that the objections raised by the petitioner and Brij Kishore were unfounded. He held that the petitioner had 8.18 acres of land as surplus. 6. Not being satisfied with the order so passed, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. Brij Kishore (Respondent no. 4) also filed an independent appeal. Both the appeals were clubbed together and dismissed under one common judgment dated 13th November, 1987. Hence this petition. It may be recorded that nobody is present on behalf of Brij Kishore (respondent no. 4) nor the Court has been
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6:
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32:
1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34:
1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 89 and 90: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 91 and 92: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 111 and 112: 1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?