Allahabad High Court
Param Hans vs State Of U.P. & Others on 18 July, 2012
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21600 of 1996
Petitioner :- Param Hans
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Faujdar Rai,C.K.Rai
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the state.
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the learned Commissioner in proceedings under Sub-section 4 of Section 27 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
The Commissioner has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to implead all the allottees and even otherwise the allotments are valid.
The contention of the petitioner is that the land in dispute was subject matter of ceiling proceedings and the appellate authority proceeded to decide an appeal vide judgment and order dated 27th May, 1991 which was in favour of the petitioner tenure holder. Aggrieved, the State filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the said order in writ petition No. 11849 of 1992. The said writ petition was admittedly dismissed on 12th March, 1996. As a consequence thereof the allotment of the land which was made in the year 1990 during the pendency of the proceedings had to be annulled as in view of the aforesaid decision that has attained finality the disputed land never vested in the state and, therefore, could not have been the subject matter of allotment. The learned Commissioner has completely over looked this aspect of the matter and the learned counsel contends that the application moved by the petitioner has been erroneously rejected.
This petition was filed and an interim order was passed on 27th January, 1997. This Court had also called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit indicating that the land in dispute ceased to be surplus land in view of the judgment aforesaid. Affidavits were filed and exchanged between the parties and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State through Mr. R.N. Chaurasia, Tehsildar of the area concerned. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that even though the appeal was allowed it was not a correct order which was challenged in a writ petition by the State. It is, however, admitted that the writ petition has been dismissed. In paragraph 6 it has been stated that the scope of inquiry under Section 27 being limited, the Commissioner could not have entered into the validity or otherwise of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act and that the petitioner should have approached the prescribed authority.
Learned Standing Counsel has advanced his submissions for supporting the order on the strength of the said counter affidavit.
The petitioner has categorically stated that he is in possession over the land in dispute. Sri Rai has invited the attention of the Court to the following judgments in which similar matters have been dealt with:
"(1) Writ -C No. 19926 of 1996 decided on 12.5.2011
(2) Writ -C No. 15998 of 2006 decided on 29.4.2011
(3)Writ -C No. 14213 of 1996 decided on 4.5.2011
(4) Writ-C No. 13961 of 1996 decided on 17.10.2001."
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and the decisions that have been placed on behalf of the petitioner the approach of the learned Commissioner is absolutely erroneous inasmuch as once the land is not surplus it cannot be presumed to have been vested in the State for the purpose of allotment. The allotment, therefore, automatically vanishes and the Commissioner has failed to exercise the powers vested in him in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13th June, 1996 is quashed. The respondent-state authorities are bound to treat the petitioner to be a valid tenure holder and his possession shall be kept intact and the revenue entries shall be made in his favour.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2012
Manish
