Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Chhotey Lal – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ - C No. – 3000009, 3000003, 3000038 of 1995, WRIT - C No. - 3000143 of 1994
Decided On : 13-10-2023
Ceiling Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - The court allowed the recall of orders dated 16.7.2022 and restoration of the petitions to their original numbers. The substitution applications were allowed, condoning the delay and setting aside abatement. The writ petitions were filed against a common order rejecting the appeal under Section 13 of the Act, and were heard together. The court considered the rights of the petitioners over the land, remitting the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration of adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed possession of land declared surplus, challenging the order and subsequent proceedings. They argued for recognition of their rights based on adverse possession and possession prior to the cutoff date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were in possession of the land and had sustained their objections in previous proceedings, demonstrating adverse possession. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration of the petitioners' rights based on adverse possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had sufficient rights over the land declared surplus, considering their possession and adverse possession claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Prescribed Authority failed to consider the petitioners' rights based on adverse possession, and the orders were set aside for this reason. The court remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration of the petitioners' rights based on adverse possession.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration of the petitioners' rights based on adverse possession.
JUDGMENT :
1. C. M. Application No.3 of 2022-for recall of order dated 16.7.2022 filed in Writ C No.3000003 of 1995 is allowed. Order dated 16.7.2022 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number.
2. C. M. Application No.3 of 2022-for recall of order dated 16.7.2022 filed in Writ C No.3000038 of 1995 is allowed. Order dated 16.7.2022 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number.
3. Substitution application filed in writ C No. 3000143 of 1994 vide C. M. Application No.4 of 2022 in place of the sole petitioner Devi Prasad is allowed condoning the delay, and setting aside abatement, if any.
4. Substitution application filed in writ C No. 3000003 of 1995 vide C. M. Application No.4 of 2022 in place of the petitioner No.2 is allowed condoning the delay, and setting aside abatement, if any.
5. Let the aforesaid substitutions be carried out during the course of day.
6. Rejoinder affidavits filed in all these petitions are taken on record.
7. Aforesaid writ petitions have been filed against common order passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 13 of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and consequently have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
8. Heard Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
9. The facts in brief are that the proceedings under Section 10 (2) were initiated against Rani Drig Raj Kunwar and were concluded by means of order dated 17.9.1962 declaring certain land to be surplus. The said order became final and publication in this regard was also made on 5.9.1964.
10. The petitioners who claim to be occupants on a part of the said land so declared surplus by means of the order by the Prescribed Authority on 17.9.1962 moved objections before the Prescribed Authority stating that they were never given opportunity and were occupants of the land declared surplus and accordingly prayed that the said order dated 17.9.1962 be revisited and recalled and fresh order be passed only after hearing them. The Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 1.4.1976 rejected the objections of the petitioners. The said objections came to be abated as per the provisions contained under Section 14 (3) of the Act of 1960 in terms of the ordinance dated 10.10.1975.
11. The petitioners had challenged the said order in a writ petitions before this Court which was also dismissed on 14.4.1980. While dismissing the writ petitions this Court had observed that the petitioners would, in any way, be allowed to file their objections under Section 11 as per the amended ordinance dated 10.10.1975. The petitioners preferred objections under Section 11 before the Prescribed Authority stating that they were in possession of the land of plot No.s 335 area 2-11-19, 344, area 1-11-5 newly numbered after consolidation as plot No.s168/3-6-10, 306/0-3-3 and 390/0-10-8 situated in Village-Tilokpur, Pargana Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. It was stated that patta of the said land was given by Raja Harnam Singh, the husband of Rani Drig Raj Kunwar and on the basis of the possession after coming into force of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had acquired rights of the said land. It was further stated that Rani Drig Raj Kunwar had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioners under Section 202 of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act on 14.5.1959 which was decreed by a common judgment and order dated 26.12.1962.
12. Against the judgment and order dated 26.12.1962 ten appeals were filed before the Commissioner, Lucknow including the appeal filed by the petitioners and the said appeals were allowed on 14.7.1963 by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. The second appeal was also dismissed on 18.9.1964 by Board of Revenue and the rights of the petitioners were upheld and the judgment attained finality. The petitioners and the others who were bhumidhari tenants before a
Recognition of rights based on adverse possession and possession prior to the cutoff date under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
The court established that claims of adverse possession must be substantiated with documentary evidence, and that collusion between parties can invalidate claims under land ceiling laws.
The presumption of correctness of entries in land records and the burden of proof on the claimant are critical in disputes regarding land ownership and possession under the Uttar Pradesh land laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to conform to the legal principles and observations made by the higher courts, particularly the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High ....
The appellate authority’s reliance on will deeds for land titling, based on proper evidence and administrative remand, was upheld, confirming that past rulings subject to reconsideration do not apply....
An order declaring land surplus issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and violates principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing.
Point of Law : There is no averment as to when the petitioner entered into possession of disputed property otherwise than in accordance with law and that such retention of possession was without cons....
Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.
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
