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 their findings unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri Aftab Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.1998 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 29.05.1997 passed by respondent No.2 and notice viz. From-III part C contained as annexures 1 to 3 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a notice under Section 10(2) / CLH Form 3-C was issued to the deceased petitioner on 29.02.1996 mentioning therein 15.65 Acres of irrigated land as ceiling surplus. In the said notice the holdings of the deceased petitioner of Village Barethi, Tahsil Gola, District Kheri was mentioned.

4. On 18.06.1996 objection was filed by the deceased petitioner asserting therein that even the statement as prepared under CLH Form 3 has been issued with vengeance of the Lekhpal and neither the same nor proper. Deceased is correct petitioner apart from his holdings of Village Barethi also gave details of his holdings in Village Rasoolpur and also specifically asserted that in the notice all the lands with area, which has been shown to be the holding of the deceased petitioner, has also been fraudulently shown and the co-owners of the Khatas have deliberately not been mentioned and if entire land is taken together, the total holding of the deceased petitioner is 21.11 Acres. It was also asserted in the objection that holdings of the deceased petitioner un-irrigated and single crop land having no source of irrigation.

5. It was also taken as a ground in the objection that 10 Acres land of the deceased petitioner lies along the banks of the river Gomti on both sides and remain submerged and as such, 10 Acres land even does not fall within the definition of land and the total holding of the deceased petitioner as such remains 11.11 Acres, which in irrigated means comes to 7.5 Acres only.

6. It was also stated in the objection that by the son of deceased petitioner 3.13 Acres land was transferred to the opposite party no.6 - now represented by 6/1, in the year 1989 and on 25.05.1990 her name was duly mutated and since then she is in actual physical possession at the spot as well as recorded as Bhumidhar and the deceased petitioner has no concern with the said land.

7. As Apart from it, the inclusion of the holding of the major sons of the deceased petitioner in his holdings well as taking into consideration number of major sons and total number of family members, the legal entitlement of the deceased petitioner to hold 15 Acres excess land was also stated and on the basis of all these objections asserting notice having been issued by the Lekhpal merely to harass the deceased petitioner and being baseless was requested cancelled/withdrawn.

8. Apart from deceased petitioner, his sons viz. opposite parties nos.4 & 5 as well as the transferee of one son viz. the opposite party no.6 also appeared and filed their written objections. (copy of objection is attached in annexure no.4 to the writ petition).

9. By the Prescribed Authority i.e. the opposite party no.2, after registering Ceiling Case No.34/32 under Section 10(2) of Ceiling Act namely State Vs. Babu Khan and others’ and taking into consideration the objections so preferred, 6 issues were framed viz. -

(i)Whether in the statement, holdings of the objector has wrongly been shown and he has lesser holding? If so, its effect.

(ii) Whether the holding is unirrigated under Section 4-A?

(iii) Number of children of objectors and area for which he is en