Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32788 of 1995 Petitioner :- Surya Narain And Another Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Alld. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R. Shyam, Govind Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 24.03.1995 passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Prescribed Authority") declaring 33-14-13 bigha land of petitioner in Village Akbarshahpur as surplus thereagainst petitioner preferred appeal which has also been rejected by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Authority") vide order dated 31.07.1995.
3. It is contended that in the objection filed before Prescribed Authority, it was clearly stated that total land of petitioners is less than permissible area of land and there is no surplus, therefore, proceedings under U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1960”) are bad in law and without looking into this aspect, Prescribed Authority has passed order dated 24.03.1995 which has been confirmed by Appellate Authority.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners drew attention of this Court to the averments made in paras- 10 and 11 of the writ petition which reads as under:-
"10. That in support of their case, the petitioners had filed documentary evidence in the shape of Khasra and Khatauni to prove that only 46 Bigha area in village- Akbarshahpur is in the holding of petitioners and there is no surplus land in the holding of petitioners at all.
11. That on behalf of State the statement of Lekhpal of Village- Akbarshahpur Vidya Shanker Shukla and the statement of Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the Lekhpal of Village-Sirokhar were recorded. Shri Vidya Shanker Shukla, Lekhpal had deposed that petitioners have only 46.173 area in their holding in village- Akbarshahpur and there is no other holding of petitioners in this village, as it is clear from true copy of statement of Shri Vidya Shanker Shukla."
5. In the counter affidavit, averments made in paras- 10 and 11 of writ petition has not been denied as is evident from paras-4 and 5 which reads as under:-
"4. That in para-10 only this much is admitted that the petitioners have filed evidence before the Court below but it is wrong to say that the petitioners have got no surplus land.
5. That the contents of paras -11 and 12 of the writ petition are matters of record and can be verified from the same."
6. When enquired from learned Standing Counsel to show as to in what manner petitioners' land has been treated to be 83 bigha and odd though they have specifically pleaded that they have only about 46 bigha land in village- Akbarshahpur but he could give no reply.
7. I find that Authorities below have not been examined the matter in this regard and there is no finding whatsoever. It is very surprising that this aspect has not been examined by Authorities below though it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 24.03.1995 and 31.07.1995 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to Prescribed Authority to examine the objection noted above by petitioners and after looking to this aspect, it shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu