Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others 473
the Act, 1960. The plea, that such limitation
of 2 years should be read in the section for
exercise of power under Section 10(2) as
reasonable period, also does not appeal to
the Court.
21. The judgments relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner deal with either
exercise of suo moto or revisional power for
correcting the orders passed earlier. The
judgments are, therefore, clearly
distinguishable. Orders, which are passed
earlier settled the rights of the parties and it
is in this background that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that the
suo moto exercise of power/exercise of
revisional power for re-opening of earlier
order, settling the rights of the parties,
cannot be exercised after an unreasonable
period.
However, in same judgments the
Apex Court has explained that what
would be the reasonable period has to be
determined in the facts of each case. In
the facts of the case in hand there has
been no determination of the surplus land
at the first instance and the petitioner
throughout continued to enjoy the land,
which he should himself have surrendered
by filing a statement under Section 9 as
surplus land. Therefore, the delay in
issuance of notice under Section 10(2) to
the petitioner has been to his benefit and
there has been no adjudication of his
rights at any point of time earlier.
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.
23. So far as the issue of Plot No.
169 and 172 being un-irrigated is
concerned, suffice is to record that the
Prescribed Authority under the impugned
order had categorically recorded that the
plots were situate within the command
area of Betwa Canal, which as per the
notification dated 08.09.1971, published
in the official gazette dated 20th
September, 1991, is Schedule-I category
canal. Therefore, in view of Section 4-A
thirdly it has rightly been held that the
land, being within the command area of
lift irrigation canal, had to be treated as
irrigated.
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.