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.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 31.12.1999, passed by the prescribed authority and 7.11.2002, passed by the appellate court.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioner on 13.7.1999. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his objection on 12.8.1999. The prescribed authority passed the impugned order, holding 1.9 acres land as surplus, against which, appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, who has passed an order on 7.11.2002, affirming the order of the prescribed authority.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order, the prescribed authority has not complied with Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and has proceeded to decide the proceeding illegally. The prescribed authority has also not examined the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that he did not examine personally to depose the report to be correct. The burden lies on the court to summon the Advocate Commissioner to record the statement and on his failure, the contents of the report is to be examined before passing the order. The prescribed authority has not examined the same and has committed apparent illegality in the eyes of law.

5. Next submission is that the appellate authority on examination of material, has stated that burden lies to produce khasra of 1378-1380 fasli on the appellate, which is incorrect. In this regard, it is submitted that it is settled law that the burden lies on the State to produce the khasras, therefore, his submission is that non-compliance to produce the khasras to examine the nature is wholly misconceived and unjustified. Next submission is that the appellate court has wrongly affirmed the order of the prescribed authority and has proceeded to pass the impugned order.

6. In support of the submission advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments :-

(i) Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, 1978 SCC OnLine All 345

(ii) Vyas Prasad Vs. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur , 2018 (1) AWC 863

(iii) Adi Kumar Jain Vs. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad , 2016 (2) JCLR 337 (All) (LB)

7. On the ground of married daughter, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that relevant date for consideration is 8.6.1973, which is the date of amendment. Notice was issued in the year 1999 and on the relevant point of time when notice was issued, she was married.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that there was no occasion to comply with Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the material was before the court below and on that basis, the order is passed. Next submission is that the burden to produce the khasras lies on the person, whose land was taken under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. After making submission, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that in case the impugned orders are set aside, the matter is to be remanded to the prescribed authority to consider the same and pass the order.

9. After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law report cited by petitioner's counsel.

10. For deciding the controversy involved, relevant paragraphs the judgments relied upon on the point th