Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Ram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Ceiling No. 59 of 1994
Decided On : 03-12-2020
U.P. Imposition of Holding Act, 1960 – Section 13-A, 10(2), 12-A, 14 – Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 153 – Petitioners assail order passed by Prescribed Authority and order passed by Appellate Authority whereby objections of petitioners have been rejected arising out of proceedings initiated – Held, In view of aforesaid dictum of this Court which could not be disputed by learned standing counsel, this Court is of opinion that option of petitioner has not been considered, thus, for this limited purpose, matter deserves to be remitted to Prescribed Authority to consider option given by petitioner in terms of Section 12-A of Act of 1960 and in light of judgment of Apex Court in case (supra) and in pursuance of his application, Annexure No. 1, and thereafter pass fresh orders most expeditiously considering that matter has been pending since decades – Insofar as finding on re-determination of surplus land of petitioner and ceiling limit made by Prescribed Authority, same is upheld by this Court and is accordingly affirmed – Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 13.02.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 31.03.1994 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the objections of the petitioners have been rejected arising out of proceedings initiated under Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Holding Act, 1960.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the above writ petition certain brief facts leading up to the petition are being noticed first.
4. That initially Ram Singh, the sole petitioner was the recorded tenure holder of the land, which was brought under the ceiling proceedings. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 03.11.1978 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Holding Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960"). The petitioner filed his objection dated 28.12.1978 against the said notice. At the relevant time, another set of objection was filed by Raas Behari Singh, the son of Ram Singh, (the original sole petitioner). During pendency of the instant petition, Shri Ram Singh expired and his son Raas Behari Singh and Santosh Kumar Singh have been brought on record as his heirs.
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid initiation of proceedings, the surplus land relating to the land holding of the petitioner was determined by the Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 31.03.1979. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to determine the issue relating to the age of the Raas Behari Singh, son of the petitioner (who now is the petitioner No. 1/1 at the present stage).
6. Thereafter, a fresh determination was made including determining the age of Raas Behari Singh and the petitioners were granted the benefit of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act of 1960 on the premise that Raas Behari Singh on the relevant date was a major. This aspect of the matter was contested right up to the High Court in the earlier round of litigation by means of Writ Petition No. 2938 (M/S) of 1982. The aforesaid writ petition, however, came to be dismissed on 23.08.1984.
7. In the meantime, the Prescribed Authority initiated proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act of 1960 and issued notice to the petitioners to re-determine the surplus land as from the record it revealed that Raas Behari Singh at the relevant time was a minor and as such the benefit of providing two hectares of additional land was apparently inconsistent with the facts on the record, hence, the ceiling limit of the petitioner and his family, which was earlier determined as 22.978 acres was proposed to be reduced to 18.05 acres and the surplus land which was earlier determined as 11.472 acres was to be enhanced to 14.412 acres.
8. This notice was the bone of contention of the second round of litigation which has given rise to the present writ petition.
9. The petitioners had filed his objections against the instant notice in the month of July, 1984. The Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 13.02.1986 after hearing the parties found that the age of Raas Behari Singh was 01.05.1959 and at the relevant time i.e. 08.06.1973 the age of Raas Behari Singh was 13 years, 9 month and 7 days. Thus, he was a minor and, therefore, the benefit of extra two hectares of land given to the petitioner was found to be an error while calculating the ceiling limits as well as surplus land.
10. The petitioners being aggrieved against the order of determination under Section 13-A of the Act of 1960 dated 13.02.1986 preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by means of the impugned order dated 31.03.1994.
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the instant writ petition was preferred wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court b
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
