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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge based on land classification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. objections filed regarding land ownership and rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. authorities dismissed objections, citing lack of evidence. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments on compliance with legal and procedural provisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. legal standards for determining irrigated land. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. judgments referenced to support basis of irrigated land claims. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. court's assessment on evidence and judicial mind application. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. findings on the legality of impugned orders. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 9. court's reasoning leading to quashing of impugned orders. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. final ruling and order of the court. (Para 43 , 44) |
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 2
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
