Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Kaushlendra Bahadur Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ (C) No. 3000130 of 1994
Decided On : 21-02-2022
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1960 - Appeal - Petition has been filed against order passed by prescribed authority as well as order - Land being irrigated or un-irrigated in terms of provisions of Act of 1960 - Initially recorded tenure-holder was issued notices Section 10(2) of Act of 1960 and in pursuance thereof Prescribed Authority vide order declared acres of land of tenure holder as surplus - it is essential that there must be irrigation facility and decision regarding irrigation facility and growing of crops is required to be taken on the basis of Khasras of 1378 to 1380 Faslis. It is held that for the aforesaid determination, the examination of the said Khasras is imperative since there is a specific column indicating the source of irrigation.(Para 23,25).
Finding of the Court:
Simply because there are two tube-wells near disputed plot it cannot be held that in view of Section 4-A and clause thirdly of that Section to record that it is an irrigated plot unless and until there is a finding based on appreciation of evidence including entries in Khasras that it come within zone of command area - While passing impugned orders authorities have also placed reliance on that two crops were shown to have been produced on plot in question - Much reliance has been placed on aforesaid aspect - However upon reading of Section 4-A of Act of 1960 it is evident that said factor is also merely corroborative and has to be seen in juxtaposition with other aspects of matters particularly with regard to entries made in Khasras of relevant years- It is no doubt correct that Section 4-A of Act of 1960 leaves a discretion upon the authorities concerned to direct local inspection to be made wherever it considers necessary. However, it is also apparent from a reading of Section 4-A of Act of 1960 that it is the statutory mandate that the Prescribed Authority is first required to examine the relevant Khasras for the said three years. Local inspection as such is meant merely to be corroborative and cannot form the basis for determination of irrigated land, keeping in view the specific provisions of Section 4-A of Act of 1960. Thus, the Prescribed Authority could not have made local inspection and the statement of Lekhpal at best is merely corroborative.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite parties 4 and 5.
2. Petition has been filed against order dated 26.02.1992 passed by the prescribed authority as well as order dated 03.08.1994 passed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner in terms of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960).
3. Initially, the dispute pertained only to plots numbered 572, 576 and 347 and their being irrigated or un-irrigated in terms of the provisions of Act of 1960.
4. The initially recorded tenure-holder was issued notices under Section 10(2) of Act of 1960 and in pursuance thereof, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 27.02.1976 declared 65.108 acres of land of the tenure holder as surplus.
5. The order was challenged in appeal which was partly allowed vide order dated 27.08.1976. Against the aforesaid order, the original tenure holder filed Writ Petition No. 3043 of 1976 which was allowed vide order dated 20.12.1978 remitting the matter to Prescribed Authority for a decision afresh. In pursuance thereof, vide order dated 25.07.1979 plots numbered 572 and 576 were held un-irrigated but plot no. 347 having an area of 23.557 acres was held to be irrigated. The Prescribed Authority was not inclined to accept the choice furnished by petitioner.
6. Order dated 25.07.1979 was thereafter challenged in appeal with submission that Plot No. 347 was also un-irrigated and that compliance of Section 4-A of Act of 1960 was not made. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.1979, which was thereafter challenged in Writ Petition No. 1108 of 1980 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 20.07.1984 again remanding the matter for consideration afresh by the appellate authority.
7. After remand, the Commissioner being the appellate authority thereafter again remitted the matter to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 27.12.1988 whereafter impugned order dated 26.02.1992 was passed and has been upheld in appeal by impugned order dated 03.08.1994.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as of now the dispute pertains only to fact as to whether plot no. 347 could be held as irrigated or un-irrigated land not only in terms of remand order but also in terms of the provisions of Act of 1960 and also explanation of choice. It is submitted that in terms of Section 4-A of Act of 1960, determination of irrigated land is to be made only after examination of relevant revenue records such as Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, which can be said to be the only authoritative documents to indicate whether a particular agricultural plot was under irrigation or not. It is submitted that while passing impugned orders, the authorities in question have not only ignored the provisions of Section 4-A of Act of 1960 but also the remand order of this Court specifically directing the concerned authorities to pass appropriate orders only after examination of the revenue records such as Khasras. It is also submitted that impugned orders have been passed purely on conjectures and surmises without any substance and also while brushing aside specific assertions made by petitioner. It is submitted that despite direction of this Court for examination of revenue records, a bare perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that relevant revenue records such as Khasras have not been examined by the concerned authorities. It is also submitted that the omission on part of the authorities was despite the fact that petitioner had submitted relevant extracts of Khasras for the said three years according to which the disputed property was shown to be un-irrigated.
9. Sri. J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties refuting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that th
The main legal point established was the need for a comprehensive consideration of evidence in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act, 1960 to determine the status of irrigated land.
The court ruled that compliance with statutory provisions in land classification is mandatory and the burden of proof regarding relevant records lies with the State.
The prescribed authority is required to examine the relevant khasras of respective years to determine the nature of the land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
The State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.
Appellate authorities must strictly adhere to remand order directives and procedural requirements; failure to do so results in vitiated orders regarding land surplus determinations.
The court established that land transfers made after the reference date under the Ceiling Act are not valid for determining surplus land, and the burden of proof regarding the classification of land ....
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
