Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others 471
alone could have been taken into
consideration. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of Badi Bahu vs. State of U.P. and others;
1997(88) RD 385.
13. Standing Counsel in reply
contends that Section 9(1) and 9(2) of Act
1960 provides for issuance of a general
notice in response whereof every tenure
holder is required under law to submit his
statement qua the surplus land possessed by
him. It is only because of the default
committed by such recorded tenure holder
by not responding to the general notice
under Section 9(1) and 9(2) of Act, 1960
that the Prescribed Authority has to exercise
his power under Section 10. It is therefore
contended that in the facts of the case the
plea that the Court may determine two years
as the reasonable period for exercise of
power under Section 10(2), after issuance of
general notice under Section 9(1) or 9(2), is
wholly misplaced. He further clarifies that
during all this intervening period i. e. from
the date of issuance of general notice under
Section 9(1) or 9(2) till the the date of
issuance of notice under Section 10(2) to
the petitioner, he continued to enjoy the
land which was surplus with him, and
therefore it cannot be said that any rights of
the petitioner are adversely affected because
of some delay in issuance of notice under
Section 10(2).
With regard to second contention of
the petitioner it is contended that under
Section 5(2) explanation, of Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act, 1953') it has been clarified that
proceedings under Act of 1960 shall not be
deemed to be proceedings in respect of
declaration of right or interest in any land.
Meaning thereby that the proceedings under
the Ceiling Act will not stand abated
because of issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land
Holdings Act. Section 30(b) of the Act No.
8 of 1953 clarifies that the rights of the
tenure holder entering into possession over
the Chak would be the same as he had in his
original holding together with such other
benefits of irrigation from a private source,
till such source exists, as the former tenure
holder of the plots comprising the Chak had
in regard to them. He, therefore, submits
that irrespective of the consolidation
proceedings the ceiling limits of the
petitioner have rightly been determined. In
the facts of the case authorities have
recorded a categorical finding that Plot No.
169 and 172 were irrigated with reference to
the fact that the plots lay within the
command area of Betwa River Canal
covered by clause thirdly of Section 4-A of
the Act, 1960.
14. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the
records of the writ petition.
15. So far as the first contention raised
on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it
may be recorded that it is not the case of the
petitioner that a general notice under
Section 9(1) or 9(2) of the Act, 1960 was
not issued or that the petitioner filed his
statement as required thereunder. Therefore,
in the facts of the case provisions of Section
10 were fully attracted and a notice was
issued to the petitioner under Section 10(2)
in accordance with law.
Section 9, as amended from time to
time, takes care of both the situations i. e.
(a) after publication of general notice under
Section 9(1) under the principal Act, and (b)
after issuance of general notice under
Section 9(2) as added by Act No. 18 of
1973.