Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25095 of 2018 Petitioner :- State Of U P Through Collector, Ghaziabad Respondent :- The Additional Commissioner (Meerut Division) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Mohan Misra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.M. Mishra, appearing for the respondent No.3.
The present petition is directed against the orders passed by the Ceiling Authority dated 25.5.2016 and 9.10.2017 arising out of the Ceiling Case No.2 of 2004-05 (State of U.P. v. Madhusudan Gupta) connected with other matters.
It appears that the ceiling proceedings were initiated against Smt. Satyawati wife of Purshottam and other tenureholders namely Madhusudan Gupta, Gyan Chand, Arun Kumar, Dharampal and Purshottam Das.
With regard to the lands situated in Village Kondli Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil, Sadarpur, District Gautambudh Nagar, the findings of fact has been returned by the Ceiling Authorities that in the revenue records as also the Chakbandi Akar Patra-45, name of Purshottam husband of Smt. Satyawati resident of 112, Tarun Enclave, Pritampura, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi has never been recorded rather the lands of the said village was recorded in the name of Purshottam Das son of Rameshwar who happened to be the brother of Smt. Satyawati.
Challenging these findings, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Ceiling Authorities have committed manifest error of law in holding Purshottam Das as the brother of Satyawati, a different person from that of her husband namely Purshottam Dayal Bhalotia, ignoring the objections filed by Satyawati in the present proceedings that the lands at Serial Nos.12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Akar Patra-3 of Village Kondli Bangar were sold by her much earlier i.e. in the year 1989-90 in favour of different persons and that the said land cannot be included in the ceiling proceedings initiated in the year 2004.
Submission is that the said averment of Smt. Satyawati in the objections filed before the Ceiling Authorities in Case No.6 of 2004- 05 (State of U.P. v. Satyawati) itself proves that the land situated in Village Kondli Bangar was the land owned by Smt. Satyawati or her husband Shri Purshottam Das.
It is further submitted that Smt. Satyawati has failed to establish that Purshottam son of Rameshwar was her brother and a different person from that of her husband namely Purshottam Das Bhalotia. In the crux, it is submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that no person in the name of Purshottam Das son of Rameshwar was in existence. The brother of Smt.Satyawati son of Rameshwar is Pradeep Kumar and no records have been placed by Smt. Satyawati before the Ceiling Authorities to establish that Pradeep Kumar and Purshottam Das son of Rameshwar were one and the same person or that Rameshwar had another son with the name of Purshottam.
These submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are found devoid of force inasmuch as, the findings returned by the Ceiling Authorities are based on the appreciation of the documentary evidences filed before it. The report of Tehsil Authority dated 4.5.2016 categorically records that the lands in Village Kondli Bangar, which were made subject matter of ceiling proceedings, were recorded in the name of Purshottam Das son of Rameshwar. Husband of Smt. Satyawati is admittedly Purshottam Dayal Bhalotia son of Bansilal Bhalotia. The State Authority has not been able to establish that Purshottam Dayal Bhalotia son of Bansilal Bhalotia and Purshottam Das son of Rameshwar are one and the same person.
In view of the above noted facts, no exception can be taken to the findings of fact recorded by the Ceiling Authority based on the evidence on record. No other grounds could be raised to challenge the orders impugned.
The writ petition is, therefore, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Jyotsana