Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
25. In the totality of the
circumstances brought on record, it is
held that the Prescribed Authority was
right in recording that Plot Nos. 169 and
172 were irrigated in view of the fact they
were situate in effective command area of
Betwa Canal, a Schedule-I Canal.
26. This Court may further clarify
that any change in the plots because of the
consolidation operation shall not in any
way adversely affect the findings recorded
qua the original land holding of the
petitioner being irrigated, inasmuch as
Section 30 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 clarifies that from the
date a tenure holder enters into possession
of Chak allotted to him shall be deemed to
have entered into possession with same
rights, title, interest and liability, as he had
in the original holdings together with such
other benefits of irrigation from a private
source, till such source exists. In view of
the aforesaid Section 30(b) of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the
petitioner cannot take benefit of mere
change in the plot numbers due to
consolidation operation. It is not the case
of the petitioner that area of his land
holdings has been reduced because of such
consolidation operation and he should be
given benefit of such reduction in area.
27. In the totality of the
circumstances on record, this Court finds
no good ground to interfere. The writ
petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands discharged.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2011
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24777 of 2011
Lakhan Lal
Versus
State Of U.P. and others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.N. Singh
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
...Petitioner
...Respondent
U.P. Imposition of ceiling on Land
Holding Act-1960-Section 14(1)(e)-
ceiling appeal admitted-stay application
rejected-considering language without
deciding appeal-possession of surplus
land can not be taken by Collectorrejection
of prayer of stay from
dispossession-not proper-writ court
itself granted interim protection.
Held: Para 7
Even otherwise in such matters where an
appeal is filed and the same has been
admitted, the same presumes a prima
facie case of the petitioner. The
appellate authority should therefore not
refuse to exercise discretion for granting
interim relief as indicated in the case of
Mahmood Rais V. State of U.P. reported
in 2009(5) ADJ 529. Learned
Commissioner himself has admitted the
appeal and therefore the rejection of the
stay application is unjustified.
Case law discussed:
2009(5) ADJ 529
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P.Sahi,J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing
counsel for the respondents.