Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON’BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Ram Swaroop – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondent
Writ C No.3003820 of 1989
Decided on : 01-07-2024
CEILING ACT - LAND HOLDINGS - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, particularly Sections 11(2) and 14(3), which govern the objections to surplus land declarations. It also referenced the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, specifically Sections 18 and 21, regarding the rights of grove holders. The court emphasized the presumption of correctness of entries in land records under Section 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, and the implications of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which bars civil court jurisdiction over matters that should be adjudicated under the consolidation framework. These provisions influenced the court's decision to uphold the rejection of the petitioner's claims due to lack of evidence of possession and failure to challenge relevant land records.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of an order declaring certain land as surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioner claimed to have been in possession of the land as a grove holder, but the land was recorded in the name of another party, and the petitioner did not file objections during consolidation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of possession and did not challenge the relevant entries in the land records. The court upheld the decisions of the Additional District Magistrate and the Additional Commissioner, stating that the petitioner’s claims were barred by the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a valid claim to the land as a grove holder and whether the orders declaring the land as surplus were lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of correctness of land records under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act applies, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish his claims. The failure to challenge the entries in the consolidation records and the lack of evidence of possession led to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and the Additional Commissioner were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi. J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged validity of an order 28.10.1987 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Raebareli in Case No. 5 (85-86) under Section 11(2) read with Section 14(3) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act had been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged validity of an order dated 15.03.1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, dismissing Appeal No. 21(87-88) filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act against the aforesaid order dated 28.10.1987.
3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner’s father had planted a grove on land bearing plot no. 150 (of third settlement), new plot number whereof is 61/3, having an area of 1 Bigha, 2 Biswa and 10 Biswansi situated in Village Alipur Khalso, Pargana, Tehsil and District Raebareli with the permission of Rana Uma Nath Bux Singh – the then proprietor of Khajoorgaon Estate. Consolidation proceedings commenced in the village in the year 1963 and after survey, a Khasra Chakbandi was prepared on C.H. Form 2-A, wherein it is mentioned that Ram Swaroop Baghdar was found in possession whereas Rana Uma Nath Singh was recorded as the chief tenant of the land in question.
4. The petitioner claims that when C.H. Form 2-A mentioned that he was found in possession of the land as the grove holder, the Assistant Consolidation Officer ought to have referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer, but it was not done and no notice was sent to the petitioner. The land in question was included in the surplus land of Raja Khajoorgaon under the Ceiling Act. The petitioner claims that the land being in the nature of grove and in possession of the petitioner, it could not have been declared to be surplus land of Raja Khajoorgaon. The land was declared as surplus and was allotted to the opposite party no. 8 without the petitioner having any knowledge of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Upon coming to know about this fact, the petitioner filed an application under Section 198(4) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of the lease deed granted in favour of opposite party no. 8. A commission was issued in those proceedings and the commissioner submitted a report stating that 10 Mango trees aged between 50-75 years, a Mahua tree aged about 50 years, a Ber tree aged about 5 years and 3 Neem trees aged about 5 to 25 years were standing on the land in question. No crop had been sown on the land and the petitioner’s payaalkikhahiwas found there. However, as the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were not maintainable, the petitioner did not pursue the same and the proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and he prayed for cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the opposite party no. 8 and the order declaring the land in question to be surplus land of Rana Swayambar Singh.
6. The opposite party no. 8 filed objections stating that the land in question had been leased to him. In support of this submission, the opposite party no. 8 filed a copy of the relevant extract of khataunis of Village Alipur Khalso and a copy of C.H. Form 41, which showed that the old plot number of land bearing Gata No. 150 is 61/3 and it was recorded that the land was in possession of Ramau son of Matau. It is recorded in khatauni for the year 1387-92
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.
Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.
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....
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....
The fact that a tenure holder is not recorded as such in the revenue records is not relevant for determining whether he is entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1) ....
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
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.
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
