Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16470 of 1995 Petitioner :- Chet Narain Singh
Reserved on 9.8.2018 Delivered on 21.8.2018
Respondent :- The Commissioner,Azamgarh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sripat,C.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P.S. Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has felt aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.1 and 2 dated 19.5.1995 and 23.1.1993 whereby the authorities have passed orders which according to the petitioner are against the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960').
3. A notice under Section 10 of the Act, 1960 was issued on 12.2.1982. A detailed objection was filed on 22.3.1982. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the district authority and the Commissioner, Varanasi held partly in favour of the petitioner by remanding back the matter with a direction that the step mother of the petitioner was also a rightful owner of 2.66 acre of land which had to be reduced to that extent.
4. The Commissioner had further held that the finding should be recorded by the prescribed authority whether the land in question was irrigated land or not. The provisions of Section 4a of the Act had to be taken into consideration before the authorities decide whether it was irrigated land or not.
5. The judgment of the learned Commissioner dated 13.12.1988 was not taken in appeal. Very strangely the Chief Revenue Officer, Jaunpur declared an are of 2 to 3 acre a surplus land by order dated 23.1.1993 impugned herein.
6. This order was challenged by way of appeal before the learned Commissioner, Varanasi and the appeal being 42 of 1993 was transferred to respondent No.1 as new commission was formed at Azamgarh. The grounds in appeal along with amendment were pressed into service but it did not find favour with the Commissioner who dismissed the appeal. It is this judgment dated 19.5.1995 which is impugned before the undersigned.
7. The factual scenario goes to show that after the demise of Chet Narain Singh, his heirs have been impleaded as petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the dismissal of the appeal is bad in the eye of law as the evidence produced by the petitioner has been completely ignored and no sustainable reason has been recorded though the petitioner had filed the Khasra 1738, 1739 and 1380 Fasli which specifically mention that the land of the petitioner was unirrigated.
9. According to him, the minor irrigation canal was made in the year 1982 and thereafter some are of land became irrigated and became capable of sowing Ravi and Kharif crops.
10. When certain land of the petitioner became irrigated, the two sons of the petitioner were major and this plea was specifically raised but the learned Commissioner has put down all the pleas raised by the petitioner on the ground that since the original order which became final was of the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi and the order of the Chief Revenue Officer was in pursuance of the directions of the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, therefore, other aspects of the case could not be dealt with by him. It is submitted that such an opinion of the learned Commissioner, Azamgarh is completely unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. He has failed to appreciate the jurisdiction vested in him by virtue of provisions contained under Section 13 of the Act, 1960.
11. The Chief Revenue Officer, Jaunpur had gone to make spot inspection delaying himself by three months and on the day of inspection, the petitioner had gone out for medical treatment of his son hence, he was not available. The Chief Revenue Officer did not notice the plot No.360 measuring 3.64 acres area which is completely very low quality land and has been valued at 30 paise in the consolidation proceedings. It is totally sandy soil and has been recorded as Quari-3 in the Revenue record.
12. It is further contended that though specific objections were made before the Chief Revenue Officer, he had completely ignored them.
13. The State has come out with a case that it was an irrigated land and the sons of the petitioner are major which has been decided as issue No.4. The date of amendment i.e. 8.6.1973 shows that their land have been clubbed and there is tube-wells and, therefore, land of the petitioners was excess of the holding.
14. While going through the record, a mention has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kallu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1990 SC 477 wherein in paragraph 10, it has been held as follows:
As regards the second contention relating to sub-clause (b), the clause refers only to the growing of at least two crops in a land found to be having assured irrigation facility in any one of the relevant years. The sub-clause does not contemplate the raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land. The classification has to be made with reference to the potentiality of the land to yield two crops in one Fasli year and not on the basis of the actual raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land. Therefore, sub-clause (b) cannot be read so as to mean that two crops should have been grown on the entire extent of a land having irrigation facility for classifying the land as 'irrigated land' as it would have the effect of limiting the operation of the sub-clause contrary to the legislative intent. The High Court has taken the view that when the Legislature made amendments to the Act, it must have had in mind the advancement that has been made in agricultural science and farm technology and by reason of it a tenure holder can overcome hurdles and raise two crops in a year over the entire extent of a land having irrigation facility. We need not go as far as that. The normal presumption, in the absence of contra-material, would be that the quality and content of soil of a land would be uniform throughout its extent. Such being the case, if a tenure holder is able to raise two crops in a year in a portion of the land, then it would be logical to hold that the other portions of the land also would have the capacity to yield two crops if the tenure holder had utilised the entire extent to raise two crops instead of utilising a portion of the land alone. The raising of two crops even on a portion of the land will prove, in the absence of material to show poor quality of soil in portions of the land due to salinity etc., the uniform nature and content of the soil of the entire land. The High Court was therefore right in holding that the Prescribed Authority can treat a land, having assured irrigation facility, as 'irrigated land' if the tenure holder had raised two crops even m a portion of the land during anyone of the prescribed years and that it is not necessary that the raising of the two crops should have been made on the entire extent of the land in order to classify the land as 'irrigated land'.
15. In this case, it is an admitted position of fact that in the years when the Act,1960 came and the cut off date, the land was not an irrigated land. The land became irrigable only after 1990. This fact has been overlooked by the authorities. The holding of the step mother also was not considered by the authorities while re-deciding the matter which goes to show that they have gone much beyond the scope of land.
16. In that view of the matter, without delving further, the orders impugned to this petition requires to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the same is set aside.
17. Petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018/DKS