Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
HON’BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru Collector Kheri – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admn. Lucknow And 5 Others – Respondents
WRIT C No. - 3000070 of 2002
Decided on : 03-07-2024
CEILING ACT - LAND HOLDINGS - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 - Section 5(6), Section 10(2); U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229-B - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, particularly Section 5(6) which addresses the treatment of land transfers made after a specified date, and Section 10(2) regarding surplus land declarations. The court interpreted these sections to conclude that the claimants' rights based on adverse possession were invalid as they were not recorded as tenure holders on the reference date. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in establishing claims and found that the appellate authority's decision lacked merit, leading to the quashing of the order allowing the claimants' appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition to quash an order from the Additional Commissioner allowing an appeal regarding surplus land declared under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The case involved claims of adverse possession by private respondents over land declared surplus, which had been contested by the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of adverse possession and that the appellate authority's decision was based on collusion between the tenure holder and the claimants. The court restored the original order of the Prescribed Authority, affirming the declaration of surplus land.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority's order allowing the claimants' appeal was valid given the lack of evidence and the alleged collusion between the tenure holder and the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate authority's decision was unsustainable as it was based on an implied admission of adverse possession without contest from the tenure holder, which fell under the provisions of Section 5(6) of the Ceiling Act, rendering the claimants' rights invalid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order dated 23.05.1998 by the Additional Commissioner was quashed, and the order dated 24.02.1993 by the Prescribed Authority was restored.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – State of Uttar Pradesh has sought quashing of an order dated 23.05.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow allowing Appeal No. 287/291/92-93 under Section 13 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a notice dated 19.11.1974 under Section 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’) was issued to Sri. Murlidhar Hakim, the recorded tenure holder of the land in question. He did not submit any reply to the notice and on 16.01.1975, the Prescribed Authority Ceiling (Second) Nighasan passed an order declaring land bearing Gata No. 197 Ga having an area of 7.78 acres, Gata No. 200 Kh having an area of 8.72 acres, Gata No. 202 M having an area of 7.812 acres, Gata No. 203 having an area of 1.00 acres and Gata No. 207 Sa having an area of 3.62 acres, total 28.93 acres, situated in village Mahangapur, Pargana Palia, Tahsil Nighasan, District Kheri to be the surplus land of Sri. Murlidhar Hakim.
3. On 28.06.1978, Anokh Singh, Pyara Singh and Hazara Singh, the predecessors in interest of the private respondents, filed an application for their impleadment and for redetermination of the ceiling and surplus area of Murlidhar Hakim, stating that the applicant no. 1 Anokh Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No. 207 Kh/3.62 acres, Pyara Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No. 197 Ga/7.78 and 200 Kh/8.75 acres and Hazara Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No. 202/25.85 acres and that they had acquired the Seeradari rights by adverse possession much before the enforcement of the amended Ceiling Act. They had filed suits under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act’) and their rights were acknowledged vide orders dated 01.08.1975, 20.12.1973 and 12.01.1977 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The land in their possession had wrongly been declared as surplus land of Murlidhar Hakim. It was stated in the application that the applicants came to know about the order dated 16.01.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority on 17.04.1978, when they obtained a copy of the extract of Khatauni.
4. The applicants were impleaded and they were given an opportunity to present their case. They filed copies of the relevant extract of Khatauni for the year 1380 to 1382 Fasli, copies of plaint filed in the three suits no. 187, 383/355 and 37 filed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and copies of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow in appeals and they got their statements recorded.
5. The State filed objections against the application and got the statement of Lekhpal recorded.
6. The Prescribed Authority had rejected the claim of the predecessors of the private respondents by means of an order dated 30.04.1988. Appeals were filed against the aforesaid order, which were allowed by a composite order dated 31.01.1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for being decided afresh.
7. The objectors had relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ziley Singh versus State: 1978 All.L.J. 772,
8. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objections by means of an order dated 24.02.1993 holding that in Ziley Singh (Supra), the land in question was recorded in the name of the claimant on the reference date whereas in the present case, the claimants’ name was not recorded as the tenure holders of the land in question on the date of reference or on the date of declaration. The suits filed by them under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were dismi
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 ....
The court established that proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960, that were initiated prior to the 1972 amendment abated, necessitating new proceedings to be initiated unde....
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 emphasized the importance of establishing the irrigation status of land and the applicability of definitions under the Ceiling Act in determining surplus land.
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
