Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. St<strong>at</strong>e <strong>of</strong> U.P. and others 469<br />
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.)<br />
1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary,<br />
Senior Advoc<strong>at</strong>e assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi<br />
Singh, Advoc<strong>at</strong>e and Standing Counsel on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> the St<strong>at</strong>e. Nobody is present for<br />
the respondent no. 4.<br />
2. Petitioner before this <strong>Court</strong> seeks<br />
quashing <strong>of</strong> the order d<strong>at</strong>ed 31.01.1985<br />
passed by the Prescribed Authority under<br />
the U.P. Imposition <strong>of</strong> Ceiling on Land<br />
Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to<br />
as Act, 1960) as well as the order <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Appell<strong>at</strong>e Authority d<strong>at</strong>ed 13.11.1987<br />
dismissing the appeal.<br />
3. Before adverting to the facts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
petition it is appropri<strong>at</strong>e to record th<strong>at</strong> the<br />
present writ petition was dismissed under a<br />
judgment d<strong>at</strong>ed 08th May, 2007. The<br />
petitioner made a review applic<strong>at</strong>ion, which<br />
was granted by the Hon'ble Judge on 06th<br />
February, 2009 and the writ petition was<br />
restored to its original number. Hence this<br />
petition has again been placed for hearing<br />
before this <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
4. Fact in short giving rise to the<br />
present writ petition are as follows:<br />
A notice under Section 10(2) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Act, 1960 was issued by the Prescribed<br />
Authority on 17.11.1983, which was duly<br />
served upon the petitioner indic<strong>at</strong>ing th<strong>at</strong><br />
the tenure holder had 8.1 acres <strong>of</strong> irrig<strong>at</strong>ed<br />
land as surplus. Petitioner filed objections to<br />
the aforesaid notice, which contained three<br />
basic objections i. e. (a) th<strong>at</strong> the notice has<br />
been issued to the petitioner only on<br />
17.11.1983 when such proceedings under<br />
Section 10(2) should have been initi<strong>at</strong>ed<br />
within reasonable time, as no period <strong>of</strong><br />
limit<strong>at</strong>ion has been prescribed under the<br />
Act, 1960 for the purpose, this reasonable<br />
period cannot extend to nearly 8 years to be<br />
counted from the d<strong>at</strong>e amendments were<br />
introduced in the Act, 1960 by U.P. Act No.<br />
20 <strong>of</strong> 1976.<br />
(b) th<strong>at</strong> a sale deed d<strong>at</strong>ed 27.11.1971<br />
was executed by the petitioner with the<br />
permission <strong>of</strong> the Settlement Officer<br />
Consolid<strong>at</strong>ion. The same was a bona fide<br />
transaction and therefore the land so<br />
transferred was liable to be excluded.<br />
(c) Plot Nos. 169 and 172 had wrongly<br />
been shown as irrig<strong>at</strong>ed.<br />
It was also st<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong> 12.19 acres <strong>of</strong><br />
land was exclusively recorded in the name<br />
<strong>of</strong> Brij Kishore, who had not been issued<br />
notice under Rule 8. In order to keep the<br />
record straight it may be recorded th<strong>at</strong> Sri<br />
Brij Kishore filed an independent objection<br />
claiming a right over G<strong>at</strong>a No. 65. Brij<br />
Kishore has been impleaded as respondent<br />
no. 4 in the present writ petition.<br />
5. The Prescribed Authority, after<br />
recording the evidence and after considering<br />
the case pleaded by the parties, vide order<br />
d<strong>at</strong>ed 31.01.1985 held th<strong>at</strong> the objections<br />
raised by the petitioner and Brij Kishore<br />
were unfounded. He held th<strong>at</strong> the petitioner<br />
had 8.18 acres <strong>of</strong> land as surplus.<br />
6. Not being s<strong>at</strong>isfied with the order<br />
so passed, the petitioner filed an appeal<br />
under Section 13 <strong>of</strong> the Act, 1960. Brij<br />
Kishore (Respondent no. 4) also filed an<br />
independent appeal. Both the appeals were<br />
clubbed together and dismissed under one<br />
common judgment d<strong>at</strong>ed 13th November,<br />
1987. Hence this petition.<br />
It may be recorded th<strong>at</strong> nobody is<br />
present on behalf <strong>of</strong> Brij Kishore<br />
(respondent no. 4) nor the <strong>Court</strong> has been