Gayatri Devi vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3612 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5540 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Gayatri Devi
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 14 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Hans
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Supplementary affidavit has filed today in Court, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The instant writ petition arises out of an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which pertained to plot No. 140-M which in the basic year record was recorded in the name of one Panna. The objection under Section 9-A (2) was filed that the name of the recorded tenure holder be expunged and the land be recorded in the name of objectors as their bhumidhari. This objection has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the consequential appeal and revision, dismissed.

It appears that this land had been declared surplus in proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and thereafter the land had been allotted in favour of Panna. The petitioner is a transferee from the said Panna.

It appears that an order was passed on 31.08.1992 by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), wherein plot No. 140-M, area 0.60 acre was ordered to be recorded in the name of the persons, it was so recorded in the khatauni of 1383 to 1389 fasli, after expunging the name of the State.

It, therefore, from the record that plot No. 140, which had earlier been declared surplus, was ordered to be recorded in the name of tenure holder, meaning thereby that it ceased to be surplus land. As a consequence of this order dated 31.08.1992. Any allotment of this land made, treating it to be surplus land, automatically came to an end on the land ceasing to be surplus land.

The orders impugned have been passed on the aforesaid reasoning as I do not find any illegality therein.

In ceiling proceedings any land which is declared surplus and is alloted to other persons, on such land ceasing to be surplus land, any allotments made, automatically come to an end. Therefore, the petitioner who claims on the basis of a sale deed from one such allottee had no case. The order impugned therefore cannot be faulted with.

The writ petition is, therefore, wholly devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.11.2018

Priyanka