Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Sher Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad And Others – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 10.03.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division and 24.09.1993 passed by the prescribed authority (Ceiling), Colonelganj, Gonda/Additional Collector, Gonda, whereby the objections of the petitioner were dismissed.
4. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are that a notice under Section 10(2) read with Sections 3-Ka, 3-Kha and 3-Ga of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued on 22.10.1974 to the father of the petitioner, Sarvadin Singh, in respect of 23.090 acres of irrigated land alleged to be surplus.
5. The father of the petitioner filed an objection dated 04.01.1975, contending inter alia that:
(i) Except Plot No. 216, the entire land of Village Bhabhuwa was grove land;
(ii) Plots Nos. 1144, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157 and 1158 of Alipur Gokula were grove lands and in possession of Rajendra Singh as bhumidhar;
(iii
The State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.
The court ruled that compliance with statutory provisions in land classification is mandatory and the burden of proof regarding relevant records lies with the State.
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 pr....
Appellate authorities must strictly adhere to remand order directives and procedural requirements; failure to do so results in vitiated orders regarding land surplus determinations.
The main legal point established was the need for a comprehensive consideration of evidence in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act, 1960 to determine the status of irrigated 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 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 ....
simply because there are two tube-wells near the disputed plot, it cannot be held that in view of Section 4-A and clause thirdly of that Section, to record that it is an irrigated plot unless and unt....
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
