The State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.

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) Plot Nos.1105, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1122, 1124 and 1123 of Alipur Gokula are grove and was grove on 24.1.1971 also;

(iv) Plot No. 1122 (0.70 acre) had been found reduced to 0.64 acre in consolidation proceedings;

(v) Land recorded as graveyard had been illegally included in the holding of Sarvadin Singh and should be released under Section 6;

(vi) Consequently, no surplus land remained with Sarvadin Singh.

6. The State filed its counter to the objection, and six specific issues were framed by the prescribed authority to determine, inter alia:

(i) Whether the grove land of Village Bhabhuwa had been wrongly shown as unirrigated ?;

(ii) Whether plot Nos. 238/0-42 and 236/1-19 of village Dudee were brick-kiln and now vacant ?;

(iii) Whether correct area of plot No.1122/0.70 is 0.64 acres ?;

(iv) Whether in paragraph 2 of objection, land shown belong to Rajendra Singh ?;

(v) Whether land shown in paragraph 5 of objection i.e. plot Nos.1105, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1122, 1124 and 1123 are grove ?;

(vi) Whether abadi and graveyard land had been incorrectly included over which no cultivation is done ?

7. On the application of the tenure-holder, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed on 10.02.1974 to inspect the disputed lands. The Commissioner submitted his report, and statements of Sarvadin Singh and witnesses including Kanhaiya Lal, Halka Lekhpal, and Rajendra Prasad were recorded in support thereof.

8. Subsequently, on 10.03.1975, the father of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.770 of 1975, challenging the proceedings under Section 10(2). The said proceedings were stayed; however, upon the coming into force of Amendment Act No. 2 of 1975 (w.e.f. 08.06.1973) and Amendment Act No.20 of 1976 (w.e.f. 17.01.1975), all such writ petitions were dismissed. During this interregnum, Sarvadin Singh is stated to have expired between 1976–1985.

9. Thereafter, on 25.06.1985, a fresh notice under Section 10(2) was issued to the petitioner upon the report of the Tehsildar regarding the dea