IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Prescribed Authority must follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 4A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and that the burden of proof lies with the state to demonstrate the irrigated status of land when contested by the tenure-holder.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Mathur, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. N. K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 01.06.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) as well as order dated 13.01.1995 rejecting appeals no.272/660 and 273/661 under Section 13 of the Act. It has been submitted that earlier in proceedings held under Section 10 of the Act, vide order dated 26.06.1976, land held on behalf of one Jitendrakant Singh was held to be surplus. The said order was challenged in appeal before the District Judge which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 04.01.1977 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision a fresh whereafter another order was passed on 21.01.1984 which was again challenged before the District Judge concerned under Section 13 of the Act. The aforesaid appeal no.4 was again allowed by means of judgment and order dated 04.02.1987 with the finding recorded that the Prescribed Authority had failed to properly determine irrigated and unirrigated portion of the land in dispute and therefore the matter was remanded again for deciding the case afresh whereafter the impugned order dated 01.06.1989 has been passed again rejecting petitioner's contention with regard to irrigated and unirrigated land. Appeal there against has also been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the appellate authority had specifically remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for determination of irrigated and unirrigated land in terms of Section 4 A of the Act to be determined on the basis of relevant Khasra, village map etc. in accordance with judgment of this Court, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have recorded a specific finding with regard to same.

4. It is submitted that however the Prescribed Authority has passed the impugned order rejecting petitioner's objection filed under Section 10(2) of the Act only on the ground that petitioner has been unable to substantiate his submission with regard to unirrigated portion of property. It is submitted that there is absolutely no finding recorded in accordance with the conditions indicated in Section 4 (A) of the Act and that burden of proof has wrongly been placed upon petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Hareshwar Dayal Seth versus Second Additional District Judge, 1982 ACJ 207 as well as judgment rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Ram Sagar versus Civil Judge, Bahraich, 1984(2) Lucknow Civil Decisions 300 as well as in the case of Kaushlendra Bahadur Singh versus State of U.P., Writ C No.3000130 of 1994.

5. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in terms of Section 4A of the Act, it is open to the Prescribed Authority to determine the irrigated and unirrigated properties of a tenure holder not only in accordance with the Khasra pertaining to 1378-1380 Fasli but also on the basis of other documents and local inspection, if required. It is submitted that once CLH Form 4 had been issued in accordance with law and was disputed by the petitioner as tenure holders, it was incumbent upon them to dispute the presumption of law. It is submitted that since petitioner have not been able to discharge their burden of proof, the Prescribed Authority has not committed any error of law in rejecting petitioner's objection.

6. Learned State Counsel had also adverted to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.02.2024 to submit that now the Khasras pertaining to Fasil years 1378-1380 have been brought on record alongwith CLH Form No.41 & 45 from which the irrigated and unirrigated portion of petitioner's tenure can be asce