Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Anand Kishor Devacharaya And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Throu. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt.Lko.And Ors. – Respondents
Writ C No. - 3000007 of 2015
Decided on : 14-05-2024
CEILING ACT - LAND HOLDINGS DISPUTE - U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960, Sections 5, 10(2), 13; Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, Section 19 - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960, particularly Sections 5, 10(2), and 13, which govern the imposition of ceilings on land holdings and the procedures for determining surplus land. The court emphasized the importance of proper notice and the legal implications of the amendment in 1972, which abated ongoing proceedings under the unamended Act. The court's interpretation of these provisions influenced its decision to quash the appellate order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an order declaring certain lands surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960, arguing that the lands had been recorded in their ancestors' names prior to the declaration. They contested the rejection of their objections and the dismissal of their appeal as time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority had erred in its interpretation of the law, particularly regarding the applicability of the old Ceiling Act and the failure to acknowledge the prior court order that quashed the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The court noted that the proceedings initiated under the unamended Act had abated due to the 1972 amendment.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority correctly applied the provisions of the Ceiling Act and whether the proceedings against the petitioners were valid under the amended law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings initiated under the unamended Ceiling Act had abated following the 1972 amendment, and fresh proceedings were required to be initiated under the amended Act. The appellate authority's failure to recognize this led to an incorrect dismissal of the petitioners' appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order dated 15.04.2015 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Additional Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Shri Karunakar Srivastava, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of an order dated 29.07.1999 passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act, Balrampur, in Case No.7/8 under Section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Ceiling Act). The petitioners have also sought quashing of an order dated 15.04.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Devi Patan Division, Gonda dismissing Appeal No.5/43 under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act, which was filed against the aforesaid order dated 29.07.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority.
3. It has been stated in the writ petition that proceedings under the Ceiling Act had been initiated against Maharani Rajlaxmi Kumari and Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh and some of their lands had been declared surplus by means of an order dated 26.04.1990 While declaring surplus lands of Maharani Rajlaxmi Kumari and Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh, land bearing Gata No.1788/1.86 acre (New Gata No.774/1.671 acre) was also included in their surplus lands whereas this land had already been recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners by means of an order dated 27.01.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
4. The petitioners’ ancestors filed objections against the order declaring their land as surplus land of Maharani Rajlaxmi Kumari and Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh but Prescribed Authority rejected the same by means of an order dated 26.07.1997. Appeal No.197 was filed under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act against the order dated 26.07.1997, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 28.11.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad.
5. The Appellate Court held that the name of Devadi Dev was ordered to be mutated in place of Kuwar Dharmendra Pratap Singh by means of an order dated 27.1.1968 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No.1944 under Section 9(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and this order was passed much earlier than the reference date i.e. 24.01.1971. The name of Devadi Dev was recorded in CH Form No.23 and 45 also in respect of disputed Gata No.774. In the relevant extracts of Khatuni relating to year 1399 to 1404 Fasli, the disputed land was entered in the name of Shanti Devi, widow of Devadi Dev and by means of an order dated 03.03.1994 passed by Tehsildar, Balrampur in Case No.374, the names of Tihuti Dev Acharya S/o Ganesh Dutt Acharya, Anand Dev Acharya, Nand Kishor Acharya and Anand Kishor Dev Acharya all sons of Bindhar Dev Achary were mutated in place of Shanti Devi W/o Devadi Dev.
6. From the aforesaid facts, the Appellate Court found that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Devadi Dev and after him, it was recorded in the name of his widow. The finding of the Prescribed Authority that the petitioners were not recorded as tenure holders of the land in dispute and, therefore, there was no need to issue a notice under Section 8 to them, was against the facts evident from the record. The Appellate Court further held that the trial Court has wrongly stated in the impugned order that the petitioners had not adduced any evidence, whereas copies of relevant extracts of Khataunies and CH Forms No.23 and 45 were available on the record of the Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) allowed the Appeal, set aside the order dated 26.07.1997 and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for being decided afresh.
7. After remand, the Prescribed Authority again passed a non-speaking and cryptic order dated 29.07.1999 and the ancestors of the petitioners again filed an Appeal bearing No.43 before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda but
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.
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....
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
Sale deeds executed prior to the appointed date under the Ceiling Act cannot be disregarded, and the authority must respect the validity of such transactions in determining surplus land.
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
The court affirmed that changes in the U.P. Ceilings Act necessitate a re-determination of surplus land in adherence to legislative amendments, disallowing re-litigation on previously settled land is....
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
