Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
IRSHAD ALI
Shiv Darshan – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Collector F/R – Respondent
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
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 State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.
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 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....
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....
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.
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 ....
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....
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
