The legal point established was the requirement for the prescribed authority to allow the petitioner to lead evidence to decide the validity of the entry in Class-IX of khatauni.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 8.2.1993 passed by the prescribed authority and 24.6.1994 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act, 1960’).

3. The dispute relates to Gata No.9/1/1M measuring 45.36 acres belonging to Amar Singh, opposite party no.7. Gata No.9/1/1/ along with some other gatas was jointly recorded in the name of Gur Bux Singh, Resham Singh and Trilochan Singh sons of Kartar Singh, Ratan Singh and Amar Singh. Total area of Gata No.9/1 was 136.09 acres, in which Amar Singh had share of 35.36 acres. It is said that all these tenure holders on the basis of mutual partition came into possession over their respective shares without any hindrance. Ceiling proceedings under the Act, 1960 were commenced against Amar Singh in the year 1982. Vide order dated 30.8.1982, the prescribed authority declared the said land of Amar Singh as surplus beyond the ceiling limit.

4. It is also said that when the ceiling authority tried to take possession of the said land in May, 1999, the petitioner could know about the order dated 30.8.1982 passed by the prescribed authority declaring the aforesaid land of the petitioner as surplus. The petitioner on 9.5.1989 filed objection under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority dismissed the objection vide order dated 15.5.1989 on the ground of limitation.

5. Against the said order dated 15.5.1989, the petitioner filed Appeal No.276 of 1988-89 before the appellate authority. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 6.1.1990 and the matter was remanded back to the prescribed authority for deciding the objection afresh on merit in accordance with law.

6. In the objection, the petitioner claimed that he was recorded as tenant in Class-IX in khatauni of 1369 Fasli and as per the law, he became sirdar of the aforesaid land prior to 1375 Fasli, which corresponds to the year 1968. Further contention of the petitioner was that before the due date i.e. 24.1.1971/8.6.1973 by virtue of operation of law, the petitioner had become sirdar on the ground that he was in adverse possession for the period of six years i.e. in the year 1376 Fasli and, therefore, the said land could not have been included in the land holding of Amar Singh.

7. The prescribed authority framed the following issues for the decision:-

(i) Whether the objector/petitioner had become bhumidhar of the land in question on the ground of his adverse possession before coming into force the Act, 1960? If yes, then what would be the effect?

(ii) Whether the objector/petitioner is entitled for any other relief.

8. The prescribed authority held that the petitioner’s possession was not recorded in any of khasras of Fasli years 1371 to 1391. His name was recorded in Class-IX of khatauni for 1371-1391 Fasli. The prescribed authority did not believe the claim of the petitioner that he was in possession of the land in question since 1369 Fasli inasmuch as he did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the said claim. The prescribed authority further was of the view that if the petitioner was recorded in possession of the land, then he would have filed a case under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act to establish his right.

9. The prescribed authority also held that the consolidation proceedings were going on in the village and in khasra partal, in PA2 Ka in Class-IX, the disputed land is mentioned. The Chakbandi Lekhpal in his statement has specifically said that in Column Nos.7, 8 and 9 of PA2 Ka, name of the petitioner was not mentioned against the disputed land, whereas Column Nos.7 and 8 of PA2 Ka, name of persons, who are in possession and sikmi persons are mentioned. The prescribed authority a