Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
Om Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ C No. 3000010 of 1996
Decided on : 22-04-2024
CEILING ACT - LAND HOLDINGS - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Sections 5, 6, 4-A, 10(2), 12-A - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, particularly Sections 5 and 6, which outline the ceiling area applicable to tenure holders and the treatment of land transfers. Section 4-A was also highlighted for determining irrigated land. The court interpreted these sections to conclude that the land in question was rightly declared surplus, as the transfers made by the original tenure holder did not comply with the statutory requirements, and the evidence presented supported the classification of the land as irrigated or unirrigated as per the Act's provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders declaring certain lands surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The original tenure holder, Sri Badri Pratap Singh, had previously contested similar orders, and after his death, the petitioner claimed to be his successor. The case involved the determination of whether certain lands were irrigated and whether they should be considered in the surplus calculation, especially in light of alleged transfers to a school.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority's decisions were justified based on the evidence presented, including discrepancies in land records and the nature of the land's use. The court upheld the classification of the land as surplus, affirming the appellate authority's reliance on the latest Khasra and inspection reports.
Issues: 1. Whether the land transferred to Sukhpal Vidyalay should be considered part of the tenure holder's holdings. 2. Whether the determination of irrigated and unirrigated land was conducted in accordance with the Ceiling Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory provisions of the Ceiling Act, particularly regarding the treatment of land transfers and the determination of surplus land, were correctly applied. The original tenure holder's transfers did not meet the legal requirements, and the evidence supported the classification of the land as surplus.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders declaring the land surplus and upholding the appellate authority's findings.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dheeraj Ojha, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 16.02.1993, passed by the opposite party no.2/Chief Revenue Officer, District Sultanpur in Case No.74 of 1985, under Section 10 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (which will be hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’), declaring 30 bigha, 16 biswa and 13 biswanshi land of the petitioner to be surplus. The petitioner has also challenged validity of the order dated 01.01.1996, passed by the opposite party no.3/Additional Commissioner Judicial, Faizabad Region, Faizabad in Appeal No.79/Sultanpur under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act, whereby the appellate authority has declared the land of Gata Nos.1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1492, 1494, 1496, 1497, 1498, 2093 as unirrigated and has directed redetermination of the surplus land of the petitioner in accordance with the directions issued by the appellate court.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sri Badri Pratap Singh was the original tenure holder of the lands in dispute. On 22.04.1974, a notice under Section 10 (2) of Ceiling Act was issued to him proposing 32 bighas, 8 biswas and 14 dhur land situate in Village Tirhut to be declared as surplus. Sri Badri Pratap Singh has submitted his objections before the Prescribed Authority on 21.05.1974, wherein he inter alia stated that he had sold away some lands.
4. On 01.11.1974, the Prescribed Authority had passed an order declaring 32 bigha, 8 biswa and 2 dhur land of Sri Badri Pratap Singh to be surplus.
5. Sri Badri Pratap Singh had filed a Ceiling Appeal No.54 of 1974 against the aforesaid order dated 01.11.1974, passed by the Prescribed Authority, which appeal was dismissed by means of an order dated 08.01.1977, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur.
6. Sri Badri Pratap Singh had challenged both the aforesaid orders by filing Writ Petition No.354 of 1977, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 27.11.1978, passed by this court and the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority were quashed. The learned Prescribed Authority was directed to redetermine as to whether the land of the petitioner was irrigated land in accordance with the principles contained in Section 4-A of Ceiling Act and to redetermine the ceiling area and the surplus land of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is recorded in the order dated 27.11.1978 that no other plea was urged before this court and while remanding the matter, this court made it clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to re-agitate any other plea before the Prescribed Authority.
7. After remand of the matter by means of order dated 27.11.1978, the Prescribed Authority decided the matter by means of an order dated 14.04.1982 holding that all the gata numbers mentioned in Ceiling Form-3 are irrigated as per the provisions contained in Section 4-A of Ceiling Act and he declared 32 bigha, 8 biswa and 2 dhur land of Sri Badri Pratap Singh to be surplus.
8. It is further mentioned in the order dated 14.04.1982 that the tenure holder Sri Badri Pratap Singh had given an option that his entire land be taken from Khata Nos.293 and 885 in Village Gajanpur Dhuria and the entire land of Khata No.156 in Village Tirhut and in case same falls short, lands be taken from Khata No.40/1. The Prescribed Authority recorded that the land Forming part of Khata No.156 was not recorded in the name of Sri Badri Pratap Singh, rather it was recorded in the name of Sukhpal Vidyalay, Tirhut. Therefore, the land offered as option could not be taken for being declared surplus land.
9. The tenure holder Sri Badri Pratap Singh again filed Ceiling Appeal No.10/82, which
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 ....
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 State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.
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 authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court did not have valid or sufficient grounds for rejecting the revised choice indicated by the petitioner because the choice can be revised till such time his....
The court ruled that a sale deed executed before the relevant date is protected under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and failure to serve notice invalidates surplus lan....
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
