SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AJAY BHANOT,SANJAY YADAV
PRAAKIRTIK SAMPADA SANRAKSHAN SAMITI – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
WPIL/461/2019



Court No. - 9

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 461 of 2019

Petitioner :- Praakirtik Sampada Sanrakshan Samiti

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.Singh,Sachida Nand Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilanand Mishra,Akhilesh Kumar

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Petitioner, a society registered under Society Registration Act

vide this Public Interest Litigation seeks direction to respondent

No. 2 to 4 to immediately start the proceedings under the

provision of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Holdings

Act, 1960 in respect of land bearing Khata No. 359

admeasuring 13.340 hectare situated at Village Awadhpur,

Tappa Kevtali, Pargana Haveily, Tehsil Chauri Chaura, District

Gorakhpur by declaring it surplus and distribute the same

amongst the poor and downtrodden in the society and declare

the sale deeds dated 18.05.2018 by respondent No. 6 and 7 in

favour of respondent no. 8 as null and void.

Though many a contention has been made in the petition;

however, principal contention of the petitioner is that the land in

question was inherited by Shanti Devi, mother of respondent

No. 6, from her father Babu Bindeshwari Bakhs Singh, and

though there exist the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land

Reforms Act, 1950 and the Act of 1960, yet the land in question

inherited by Shanti Devi was not subjected to ceiling

proceedings resulting in its escapement from being declared

surplus. Because of said escapement, it is urged that, the

successors of said Shanti Devi, i.e., respondent No. 6 and 7

have disposed of the property vide impugned sale deed. It is

urged that retention of land in question being contrary to the

provision of the Act of 1950 and 1960 renders the execution of

sale deed void ab initio.

To substantiate the contention further, the petitioner has filed an

amendment application seeking incorporation of certain facts

wherefrom it is borne out that the entire agriculture holding of

Smt. Shanti Devi was subjected to proceedings under the Act of

1960 whereon an order was passed on 2.9.1989 by Prescribed

Authority whereby 75.05 acre of her holding was declared

surplus; whereagainst she preferred an appeal before the

Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur

forming subject matter of Case No. 145/257/6/G/1989. The

appeal was decided on 13.3.1991 whereby the order passed by

Prescribed Authority was modified and in place of 75.05 acres,

38.75 acres of land was found surplus. It is further borne out

from the record that the appellate order was unsuccessfully

challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21024 of 1991

(dismissed on 23.04.1998) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.

11954 of 1991 (Dismissed on 27.3.2009).

The facts in record belie the contention of the petitioner that

13.340 hectare of Khata No. 359 Village Awadhpur was

illegally retained by Smt. Shanti Devi and her legal heirs.

Furthermore, the petitioner miserably fails to establish that the

subject land was declared surplus.

That being so, the petition being sans merit deserves to be and

is hereby dismissed. No Costs.

All interlocutory applications stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 17.3.2021

Kirti

(Ajay Bhanot, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top