Allahabad High Court
Satya Narain And Ohters vs Commissioner Faizabad Division ... on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
1.
Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned Standing Counsel.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs :-
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by opposite party No.1 in Appeal No.468/87/451 Ceiling dated 07.09.2000 (contained in Annexure No.6)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued and reply was filed and Prescribed Authority declared 26,3,92 acres land as surplus considering the total land as irrigated, which was totally against the facts and records, but the same was affirmed in the Appeal. He further submitted that notice was served on the petitioners, who were substituted in place of recorded tenure holder (late Sukhmati Kunwari), objection was submitted on 15.05.1974 mentioning the fact that land of area 15.564 of village Ullahwa is of Aditya Prasad, Shiv Prasad of Village Tenduwa Ratanpur and land area 5.935 of Ullahawa had already been sold by the recorded tenure holder and total land of late Sukhmati Kunwari is unirrigated, there is Sahan on 2 acres land and 3 acres land was executed as gift to her daughter. It has also been mentioned that 8 acres was grove and all these should not be included in her land. He further submitted that prescribed authority framed total seven issues, and to prove the case of tenure holder Sukhmati Kunwari examined herself and filed relevant Khasra as documentary proof and appeal was also filed, which was rejected, and thereafter, Writ Petition No.1811 of 1981 was filed, which was allowed in part on 14.08.1984 and remanded the matter and appellate authority was directed to restore the appeal to its original number with the observation that the plea about irrigated and unirrigated land was raised, but the same was not considered, thereafter, appellate authority rejected the appeal, vide order dated 07.09.2000 without considering the observations of Writ Court. Hence, indulgence of this Court is necessary.
4. Learned Standing Counsel opposes the prayer of petitioners and submitted that in pursuance of the direction of Writ Court in the aforesaid writ petition, three questions were framed by the appellate authority. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority, therefore, petition is misconceived and is liable to the dismissed.
5. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and going through the contents of impugned orders, it is evident that Writ Petition No.1811 of 1981 was partly allowed on 14.08.1984, the relevant part of the judgment and order reads as under:-
" The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the question that the land held by the petitioner is unirrigated and not irrigated was pressed before the Additional District Judge, but the Additional District judge did not record a finding over the same. This averment has been made in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit there is no specific denial, as such it has got to be accepted that this plea was raised and was not considered. Secondly it was asserted that although there was an issue whether 8 acres of land was covered by a grove and the Prescribed Authority considered the same but the Additional District Judge did not consider the same even though the same was specifically raised. This contention is also not without force. Thirdly it was argued that the District Judge failed to consider that the Sahan of the house is part of the abdi itself, and without considering the said aspect the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner who was claiming that the particular area was covered by Abadi.
The Writ Petition is allowed in part."
Thereafter, three questions were framed by the Appellate Authority in compliance of the direction passed in the aforesaid writ petition and in the order, it is observed that no land of the recorded tenure holder was considered as irrigated land. It was also observed that related to the second issue for 8 acres grove land, the recorded tenure holder failed to give the plot number of the grove and no documentary evidence like Khasra was placed before the Authority. As per the record available with the authorities, it was found that 20 mango trees were found in Gata No.114 area 0.850 and 2 trees standing in Gata No.79/2 area 2 acres, therefore, the court below has rightly observed that Gata of having area 2 acres, in which, only four trees are standing cannot be treated as a grove and appellate court also observed that recorded tenure holder also failed to place number of plot those were claiming as Sahan land and in the petition there is no description on the issue No.2 and 3 related to consideration of grove of 8 acres land as well as Sahan of 2 acres. It is also observed that all the land was considered unirrigated.
6. The writ petition accordingly fails and it hereby dismissed.
