Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 211 of 1997 Petitioner :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Judicial Kanpur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.C. Verma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioner and Sri S.C. Verma, Advocate for respondent-2.
2. This writ petition has been filed by State of U.P. through Collector, Etawah against order dated 27.12.1995 whereby appeal of tenure holder has been partly allowed and Prescribed Authority's order 30.03.1995 has been modified and instead of 7.43 acre which was declared surplus by Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority has reduced it to 0.97 acre.
3. Learned Standing Counsel contended that in respect of land No. 3307, 3248, 3249, 3170 and 185 sale deeds were executed after cut off date but that has been ignored by Appellate Authority.
4. However, I find from impugned order that in respect of aforesaid property and others earlier a notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1960") was issued to tenure holder's father, Ram Saran Lal and after considering those sale deeds 8.32 acre land was declared surplus and that was given effect to and entered in record. Once these proceedings are already taken into consideration and sale deeds are already considered, the same land could not have been made subject matter of ceiling proceeding again and, therefore, fresh notice for the same land is not permissible. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that the same issue could not have been reagitated and hence this ground raised by petitioner cannot be sustained.
5. The second question is, whether Appellate Authority was justified in considering certain land as non-agricultural. I find that in respect of this issue also Appellate Authority has recorded finding that in earlier proceedings aforesaid land was found non-agricultural and, therefore, I find no reason to take a different view.
6. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by Appellate Authority could be shown perverse or contrary to material on record, hence I find no reason to interfere with impugned order.
7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 AK