Back
2007 Supreme(All) 2660
[2007(10) ADJ 233]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
SHANKER DEO BHARATI ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .......Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11591 of 1981, decided on 25th October, 2007)
Counsel :
Anil Sharma for the Petitioner; S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960—Sections 10(2) and 11(2), 13—Land declared as surplus—Proceedings under—References were referred to Arbitrator—Objections as filed by parties—Arbitrator by its award found that S.S. and L.S. have joint claim as Bhumidhar of land—And that S.S. disposed of his half share in land in dispute in favour of B.S.—And it was found that thereafter B.S. and others were Bhumidhars to extent of half share in land in suit—And that L.S. was co-Bhumidhar of plots in suit to extent of half share, and that S.S. was not exclusive Bhumidhar of plot in suit—Objection of one R.N.S. was rejected—And Arbitrator has also held that S.S. was not exclusive Bhumidhar of plots in suit—Appeal against, before D.J., was rejected—And also Civil Revision was filed before High Court, which was decided holding that findings recorded by lower appellate Court to effect that award did not suffer from any misconduct of Arbitrator—Hence, award became final between parties and pre-decessor-in-interest of petitioner, namely, L.S. was held to be a co-tenure-holder to extent of half share in land of suit—Hence, writ petition against—Held, as no notice was issued to petitioner, or petitioner’s father, only fresh notices were issued to L.Rs. of S.S. and L.S. have surrendered land belonging to father of petitioner as surplus—Hence, petitioner was not aware of surrendering surplus land of petitioners’ father by heirs of S.S.—When they came to know, he filed writ petition before High Court, which was dismissed—Thus, Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority were not justified in rejecting claim of petitioner only on ground that as objection has not been filed within 30 days, as provided under Act, therefore, same cannot be considered—Hence, order passed by Prescribed Authority and order passed by A.D.J. quashed and set aside—Case remanded back to Prescribed Authority to decide his objection. [Paras 14, 15, 16 and 17]
Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16.9.1980 and the order passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge dated 6.8.1981 (Annexures 9 & 10 respectively to the writ petition). Further prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land declared as surplus during the pendency of the present writ petition. A further prayer is also for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the petitioner’s objection on merits.
2. The relevant pedigree for the purposes of instant case is being reproduced below :
Bhajan Singh
Shiv Raj Singh Niadar Singh Lekhraj Singh
(died issueless)
Shanti Swarup
Laxman Swarup
Mahendra Bhupendra Kamendra Singh Shanker Dev Bharti
Singh Singh (Deceased) (petitioner)
(Res. 4) (Res. 5)
Suchit Kumar
(Res. 6)
3. The village Mauzampur Sujan, Mohammadpur Deomal along with other villages were the Zamindari villages of the joint Hindu family and there was Sir Khudkasht and intermediary grove of the said joint Hindu family in villages Mauzampur Sujan and Mohammadpur Deomal along with other villages. Sri Lekhraj Singh had died prior to the abolition of Zamindari. The joint Hindu family consisted of Seth Lakhsman Swarup and his family members. The joint Hindu family has acquired Bhumidhari rights in the land of villages Mohammadpur Deomal and Mauzampur Sujan. The proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act started in the aforesaid village. The objections were filed in respect of land of Mohammadpur Deomal and Mauzampur Sujan. Six land references were referred to Arbitrator in respect of land situated in two villages. An objection was also filed by Sri Laxman Swarup and other persons. Sri Raghu Nath Singh has also filed an objection claiming some of the plots of village Mohammadpur Deomal involved in the objection filed by Laxman Swarup. The objections were decided by the Arbitrator vide its award dated 1.1.1964. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Arbitrator found that Sri Shanti Swarup and Laxman Swarup have joint claim as Bhumidhar of the land of village Mohammadpur Deomal and Mauzampur Sujan. It has also been found that Sri Shanti Swarup disposed of his half share in the land in dispute of village Mohammadpur Deomal, Mahal Zard in favour of Bhopal Singh and thereafter Bhopal Singh and others are Bhumidhars to the extent of half share in the land in suit of village Mohammadpur Deomal and Seth Laxman Swarup is co-bhumidhar of the plots in suit of village Mauzampur Sujan to the extent of half share and Shanti Swarup is not exclusive bhumidhar of the plot in suit of village Mauzampur Sujan. The objections of Sri Raghu Nath Singh was rejected and the Arbitrator has also held that Sri Shanti Swarup is not the exclusive bhumidhar of plots mentioned in the suit of village Mauzampur Sujan.
4. Against the judgement and award, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, which was rejected vide order dated 4.5.1970. A Civil Revision was filed before this Court being Civil Revision No. 22 of 1972, which was decided on 22.3.1972 holding the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that the award did not suffer from any misconduct of the Arbitrator. The award dated 1.1.1964 became final between the parties and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Late Laxman Swarup was held to be a co-bhumidhar to the extent of one half of share in the land of village Mohammadpur Deomal and Mauzampur Sujan.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after initiation of the proceedings after the amendment of the Ceiling Act by the Act No. 2 of 1975 and 20 of 1976, no notice whatsoever was issued to the father of the petitioner or the petition
