This writ petition has been filed assailing the appellate order dated 8.12.1998 passed by respondent no.1.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased 2/3 of the area of plot no.191, an area 9.94 acres and of plot no.501, area 0.35 acres through a registered sale deed executed by the original tenure holder Jalim Singh on 1.6.1988. These plot numbers were given in pursuance of consolidation proceedings and the earlier plot number was 1616/2. The dispute in the present writ petition with regard to an area of 0.84 acres of the said plots, which have been declared surplus land in proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which was initiated against Jalim Singh. It is also stated that Jalim Singh died some time in the year 1991.
Further contention of the petitioner is that his name has been mutated in the revenue records. It is also stated that a suit no.25 under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A.& L. R. Act, 1950 (Act, 1950) was filed by the petitioner against respondent no.4, Smt. Savitri, who is the daughter of late Jalim Singh and to whom portion of the plot was stated to have been sold by late Jalim Singh. It is stated that by the order dated 31.10.95 share of the petitioner and of the respondent no.4 was divided and plot no.191/2 having an area of 2.081 acres was allotted to the petitioner. It is also stated that after about ten years of the sale deed, the Lekhpal without giving any notice to the petitioner made an entry in plot no.191, having an area 1.23 acres in the name of Smt. Indrani, respondent no.6. When this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner he filed a restoration application before the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur. His restoration application is stated to have been allowed by the order dated 13.11.1997 and the Consolidation Officer recalled his earlier order dated 10.7.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakutdham Mandal, Banda, respondent No.1 on the ground that he had purchased the plot in dispute from the original tenure holder Jalim Singh, which was given a new number 191 and that the land which has been declared surplus should have been carved out from the other plots of Jalim Singh and not from the plot no.191. The respondent no.1, has however, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.
I have heard Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing appearing for the respondents.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had purchased the land in question from Jalim Singh, the original tenure holder of plot nos.191 and 501, which in consolidation proceedings were renumbered as 1616/2. He further submitted that in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 the land should have been carved out from other plots and not from the plot purchased by the petitioner.
Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has referred to the averments made in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been clearly stated that the appeal in which the impugned order dated 8.12.1998 was passed, was filed challenging the order dated 25.6.76 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent no.2 in the ceiling proceedings. It is further submitted by the learned standing counsel that original ceiling proceedings had been initiated against Sri Jalim Singh, the original tenure holder, in which the land in question had been declared to be surplus by the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.6.76. Jalim Singh expired some time in the year 1991 and till that date he never challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority in the ceiling proceedings and, therefore, the said proceedings had attained finality with the order dated 25.6.1976 and in any view of the matter, the petitioner being only a purchaser of the plot in question from the original tenure holder, Jalim Singh, he would not acquire any locus to file Ceiling Appeal No.17 of 1997-98, and, therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel further submitted that after the order of the Prescribed Authority, possession of the land in question was taken by the State of U.P. in the year 1977.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it is no longer in dispute that the petitioner is only a purchaser of the land in question, which had already been declared surplus in ceiling proceedings by the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.6.76. Jalim Singh, the original tenure holder, never challenged the proceedings nor the order dated 25.6.1976 and, therefore, the order had become final and ceiling appeal filed subsequently by the petitioner, in which the impugned order dated 8.12.1998 was passed, was not maintainable as the petitioner had no locus standi to file the said appeal. The land also stood vested in the State of U.P. in 1977 itself. The present writ petition also has been filed by the petitioner who had purchased the land in question from late Jalim Singh and, therefore, the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner is also not maintainable.
For reasons stated above, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2012 Asha