Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Ajay Pratap Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 3000031 of 1994
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Notice - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings - Act, 1960, Section 10(2) - Section 21 of the General Clauses Act - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, particularly Sections 9 and 10, and the power to issue, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The court highlighted the duty of the tenure holder to submit a statement in respect of the excess ceiling area of his land holding and the consequences of failing to do so. The court also emphasized the authority's power to issue a second notice if the first notice was defective or incorrect, as long as adjudication had not taken place before issuing the second notice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The notice was initially issued to the petitioner's deceased father, and subsequent legal proceedings ensued regarding the issuance and withdrawal of the notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prescribed authority did not commit an error in issuing a second notice and directed both notices to be clubbed together for comprehensive objection filing by the petitioner. The court also directed the prescribed authority to decide the case within six months.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of issuing a second notice under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, particularly in the context of the first notice being defective due to being issued against a deceased person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the tenure holder to submit a correct statement of land holding and the authority's power to issue a second notice if the first notice was defective or incorrect, as long as adjudication had not taken place before issuing the second notice.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to club both notices together for comprehensive objection filing and instructed the prescribed authority to decide the case within six months.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the notice dated 4.1.1989 issued by the prescribed authority under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960').
2. Initially, a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioner on 24.11.1987. This Notice was issued against Bhanu Pratap Singh, father of the petitioner, who had died when the notice was issued.
3. The petitioner had filed objection to the first notice. The petitioner said that an area 14 bigha 18 biswas situated at Village Shekhpur was exclusive holding of the father of the petitioner which was transferred by gift by his father to the petitioner prior to the cut off dated i.e. 24.1.1971 and as a result of this gift, the petitioner had come into possession of the said land and he became bhumidhar of the said land during the life time of his father. It is alleged that no objection was filed by the State to the objection filed by the petitioner. The parties lead their evidence and arguments were heard on 30.11.1988 and the next date was fixed as 14.12.1988. However, no order was passed on 14.12.1988 and, thereafter, the case was fixed for 4.1.1989 for orders. On 4.1.1989, an application was moved on behalf of the state before the prescribed authority for withdrawing the notice dated 24.11.1987 with liberty to file afresh notice. The said application was allowed on the same date i.e. 4.1.1989 by the prescribed authority and notice was allowed to be withdrawn.
4. Against the order dated 4.1.1989 passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya Ji). The petitioner also prayed for staying further proceedings before the prescribed authority. The Divisional commissioner vide order dated 16.5.1989 directed the parties to maintain status-quo till 30.5.1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner was decided by the divisional commissioner vide order dated 11.7.1991 and set aside the order dated 4.1.1989 and remanded the matter back to the file of the prescribed authority and directed him to decide the application after inviting objection from the petitioner.
5. After remand by the Divisional commissioner to the prescribed authority, the petitioner had filed objection to the application dated 4.1.1989 filed by the State for withdrawing the first notice dated 24.11.1987. The petitioner said that application for withdrawal of the first notice did not contain any reason that why such an application was moved. The petitioner prayed for rejection of the application. However, the prescribed authority vide order dated 15.12.1993 rejected the application dated 4.1.1989 for withdrawing the first notice dated 24.11.1987.
6. On 15.12.1993, second application for withdrawing the first notice was again moved by the State. It is said that when the application dated 15.12.1993 for withdrawing the first notice dated 24.11.1987 was still pending for disposal before the prescribed authority, second impugned notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 dated 4.1.1989 was issued. The petitioner had filed objection to the second notice and the proceedings in respect of the second notice are also pending before the prescribed authority. The petitioner thereafter has filed this writ petition challenging the issuance of the second notice.
7. The primary ground which has been urged by Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision under the Act, 1960 or the rules made thereunder for issuing second notice. He further submits that second notice is wholly without jurisdiction and against law and is liable to be set aside.
8. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the first notice was later on corrected and the arguments were heard and when the judgment was to be pronounced, the State authorities came
The duty of the tenure holder to submit a correct statement of land holding and the authority's power to issue a second notice if the first notice was defective or incorrect, as long as adjudication ....
Adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.”
The legal heirs of a recorded tenure holder are entitled to contest the determination of surplus land, and compliance with notice requirements is essential for the validity of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for serving notice to the concerned parties in ceiling proceedings and the significance of actual cultivatory possession based on t....
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
Re-initiation of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 can only occur under specific circumstances as stated in the Act.
Point of Law : S. 11(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 permits tenure-holders to file objections. Such tenure holders may be those who have been served with a notice and the....
appellate Authority found that earlier notice issued to father of the petitioners in which determination took place is different than the notice which was subsequently issued to his sons Avadhram and....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
