HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1096 of 2023 Preet Pal Singh & another ………Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………Respondents Mr. Kirti Sharan Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned S.C. for the State-respondent no.1.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality, propriety, and correctness of the orders dated 20.03.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Udham Singh Nagar, and the appellate order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital, in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The grievance of the petitioners centres on the rejection of the choice of surplus land furnished by their predecessor-in- interest under Section 12-A of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act), and on the consequent declaration of certain lands as surplus on the basis of findings that, according to the petitioners, suffer from patent errors of law, non-consideration of relevant statutory provisions, and misapplication of principles governing determination of surplus land under the ceiling laws. As the impugned orders are alleged to have been passed in complete disregard of statutory mandates and binding judicial precedents, the petitioners seek supervisory intervention of this Court.

2. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners, late Sri Harbansh Singh Dhillon, held agricultural lands in Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (earlier District Nainital). Upon the enforcement of amendments to the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, notices were issued to him by the Prescribed Authority proposing to declare certain land as surplus. He contested the proceedings, but the Prescribed Authority, by order dated 16.11.1977, declared land as surplus. Aggrieved, Sri Harbansh Singh Dhillon preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Court of Additional District Judge-III, Nainital. By judgment dated 07.04.1978, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal, holding only 65 bighas as surplus while also permitting the tenure holder to indicate his choice of surplus land. The matter was thereafter carried in writ before the then High Court of Allahabad but was dismissed. Even the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court met the same fate. Pursuant to the liberty conferred under Section 12-A of the Ceiling Act, the predecessor of the petitioners submitted his choice of land to be declared surplus before the Prescribed Authority, Udham Singh Nagar. The Prescribed Authority partly accepted the choice through its order dated 26.11.2012. Dissatisfied, the tenure holder preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division. The appeal was transferred to the Court of Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 14.08.2014 allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Prescribed Authority. Upon remand, the Prescribed Authority allowed an application of respondent no. 2 seeking impleadment in the proceedings. During this period, Sri Harbansh Singh Dhillon passed away, and the present petitioners were substituted. Ultimately, by order dated 20.03.2021, the Prescribed Authority rejected the choice furnished by the predecessor of the petitioners, ostensibly on the objections of respondent no. 2, and declared other lands as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal, but the Commissioner, Kumaun Division dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.01.2023. The impugned orders proceed on the assumption that a family settlement dated 04.01.1997 existed between the parties, and that such settlement determined the nature of land holding. The petitioners have consistently denied the existence or validity of any such settlement. The authorities, however, accepted the alleged