Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Dasoda Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ayukt Lucknow Division Lucknow – Respondent
Writ C No.3000076 of 2008
Decided on : 08-04-2024
Ceiling Act - Land Holdings - Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 13(2) of the U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 29(b) of the Ceiling Act, Section 3(c), (d), (f), (k), (l) of the Ceiling Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of an order declaring their land as surplus under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act and the dismissal of their appeal under Section 13(2) of the same Act. The court analyzed the proceedings and found that the orders were unsustainable in law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders declaring the land as surplus were unsustainable in law, and the dismissal of the appeal was vitiated by not considering relevant aspects of the matter.
Issues: Validity of order declaring land as surplus, Dismissal of appeal under Section 13(2) of the Ceiling Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the land could not be declared surplus as there was no material to establish its irrigation status in the relevant years, and certain land could not be considered surplus based on the definitions of family, holding, person, surplus land, and tenure holder under the Ceiling Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders declaring the land as surplus and dismissing the appeal were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri V.K. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Maurya, the learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority Ceiling Act/Additional Collector, Kheri in Case No. 37/2004-05 under Section 10(2) Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, whereby 5.38 hectares land of the petitioners situated in Village Sumerpur, Pargana and Tehsil Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri was declared surplus and proceedings for taking possession of that land were initiated. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of an order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissing Appeal No. 102/2006-07 under Section 13(2) of the U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as “Ceiling Act”) field against the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2007.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that 4.50 acre un-irrigated land of the petitioners’ father Gargaj Singh was declared to be surplus by means of an order dated 30.06.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No. 73/1959 under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners’ father had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by the learned District Judge by means of an order dated 16.01.1980 and the order was modified by reducing the surplus land area to 4.10 acres.
4. After Gargaj Singh died on 27.02.1990, a notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was issued to the petitioners on 05.04.1995. The petitioners filed their objections and the proceedings were closed by means of an order dated 22.02.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, holding the same to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
5. The State filed an appeal against the order dated 22.02.1996, which was allowed and the matter was remanded but even after remand, the Prescribed Authority closed the proceedings by means of an order dated 15.06.2001.
6. On 25.05.2005, another notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was issued against the petitioners.
7. The petitioners filed their objections and the Prescribed Authority framed issues, including an issue regarding the effect of previous proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act having attained finality. The Prescribed Authority held that the first notice issued to the father of the petitioners mentioned merely 7.46 hectares acres land to be irrigated and the rest land was mentioned to be un-irrigated whereas from the statements of the Lekhpal and Assistant Registrar, Kanungo recorded in the proceedings instituted on the basis of third notice, it appeared that the entire land was irrigated. While deciding the proceedings initiated on the basis of the second notice, the Prescribed Authority had summarily held that the land was un-irrigated and this finding was erroneous.
8. Assailing the aforesaid finding of the Prescribed Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the statement of Lekhpal and Assistance Registrar, Kanungo merely mention that the land is irrigated in present time but it does not make a mention as to when was the land irrigated for the first time.
9. Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, contains provisions regarding determination of irrigated land and it provides that “the Prescribed Authority shall examine the relevant Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion that irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years while by any canal, any lift irrigation cannal or in any State tube-well or a private ir
The court emphasized the importance of establishing the irrigation status of land and the applicability of definitions under the Ceiling Act in determining surplus land.
Authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling Act must prove surplus claims with adequate evidence; failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and misclassification of land holdings rendered th....
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 ....
The court upholds previous rulings on land allocation while remanding specific plots for reevaluation under existing law.
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 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 ....
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
