Allahabad High Court
Ram Krishna Math And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000015 of 1994
Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Math And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Pande,Dr. Ramsurat Pande,Virendra Bhatt
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29.7.1992 passed by the respondent no.2 and impugned order dated 20.1.1994 passed by the respondent no.3. They have also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere into the possession of the petitioners over the land in question and not to take its possession from the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority committed manifest error while holding that the petitioners, who are the unrecorded tenure holders, are not legally entitled to file objection under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. He submits that in fact the petitioners had acquired right, title and interest in the land in question which has been determined as surplus area and, as such, their objections under Section 11(2) was maintainable before the Prescribed Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment and order dated 21.3.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 3000016 of 1994, Ram Krishna Math and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held that if a person has acquired right, title and interest by a legal and valid instrument then he would be required to be issued notice even if his name is not recorded as tenure holder in the revenue record and it has further been held that if the land of such a person is treated to be land holding of the tenure holder to whom notice under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act was issued and proceedings were finalized, such a person would be entitled to file objection under Section 11(2) of the 1960 Act. He submits that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has passed orders impugned on the wrong premise and, as such, the same are liable to be quashed.
After the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ends of justice would be subserved if this petition is also decided in terms of the order dated 21.3.2021 passed in Writ-C No.3000016 of 1996.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments raised by counsel for both the sides, this petition is also decided in the terms of the order dated 21.3.2022.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.7.1992 passed by the respondent no.2 and impugned order dated 20.1.1994 passed by the respondent no.3 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the matter afresh after the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the Act 1960 and after affording opportunity of leading evidence and thereafter pass a fresh order expeditiously.
It is made clear that since there was single order on the two objections and, as such, the Prescribed Authority shall hear the matter clubbing both the matters with each other.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022/Ram Murti
