Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
informed about any other writ petition
having been filed by Brij Kishore.
7. Before this Court Sri V.K.S.
Chaudhary, Senior Advocate has raised two
grounds for challenging the orders
impugned. Firstly, that although no time
limit is fixed under Section 10(2) of Act,
1960 for issuance of a notice but such a
power can be exercised only within
reasonable time. He submits that U.P. Act
No. 20 of 1976 was published in the official
gazette on 03rd May, 1976. It was made
effective from 10th October, 1975 and
therefore any proceedings in pursuance to
the said Amending Act could have been
taken within reasonable period, which if
read with reference to other provisions of
Act, 1960 would be a period of two years.
Since in the facts of the case notice has been
issued after 8 years, the entire proceedings
are bad, as the reasonable period cannot
extend to 8 years.
8. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the cases of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk
Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs. K. Supresh
Reddy and others; (2003) 7 SCC 667
(Paragraph 12 and 13), State of H.P. And
others vs. Rajkumar Brijender Singh and
others; (2004) 10 SCC 585, as well as M/s
S.B. Gurbaksh Singh vs. Union of India
and others; (1976) 2 SCC 181.
9. He clarifies that there had been
three stages for imposition of ceiling on
land holding in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The first stage commenced with the
introduction of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961 i. e.
the principal Act. The second stage stood
initiated with the issuance of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1973, whereby amendments were
made in Section 9 and other corresponding
provisions. The Amending Act also
contains transitory provision, whereunder
two years time limit had been fixed for redetermination
of the ceiling limits, and the
third stage stood commenced with the
introduction of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 i.e.
with effect from 10.10.1975.
10. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that under Section 13-A of Act, 1960 a
period of two years from the date of
notification under Section 14 has been
provided for rectification of a mistake.
Under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No. 2 of
1975 (Transitory Provision) a period of 2
years has been provided for redetermination
of ceiling limits under the amended
provisions. Lastly under Section 13(3) of
the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1975 (Transitory
Provision) in respect of cases already
decided before 10.10.1975, a period of two
years have been notified for redetermination
of the ceiling limits. The State Legislature
has found this period of two years to be the
fair and reasonable period for reopening of
the orders already made and this period,
according to the petitioner, should be the
maximum period for exercise of powers
under Section 10(2).
11. Since in the facts of the case
notice has been issued after nearly 8 years
under Section 10(2), he submits that the
same cannot be considered to be a
reasonable period for exercise of power by
the authorities. The proceedings should,
therefore, fall on this ground alone in view
of the law referred to above.
12. The second ground raised before
this Court is that both the authorities have
taken into consideration the Khasra entries
of the 1388, 1389 and 1390 Fasli for
arriving at a conclusion that Plot No. 169
and 172 were irrigated. He submits that the
Khasra entries of 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli