Allahabad High Court
Smt. Malti Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000022 of 1993
Petitioner :- Smt. Malti Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirmal Tewari,D.K. Singh,Deepak Tewari,R.S.Tripathi,Shiv Nath Tilhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petijtioner, Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.02.1986 passed by the prescribed authority i.e., opposite party no. 3 after proceeding under Section 11 Sub Section (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act and further he has also assailed the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.01.1990 i.e., respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the petitioner had obtained a decree of judicial separation on 07.11.1970 and as such she is the one of the separate tenure holder of certain gatas of agricultural land. The matter was already decided by the prescribed authority on the objection of Raja Krishna Pratap Singh on 28.02.1978 but no notice was issued to the present petitioner. On 08.03.1984, she filed an objections under Section 11(2) before the prescribed authority wherein showing the details as well as the contention with regard to her judicial separation and requested that she may be heard. On the aforesaid application the prescribed authority fixed the date for hearing and it was finally heard and decided on 19.02.1986 whereby the claim of the present petitioner has been rejected. He submits that infact prescribed authority while deciding the issue aforesaid has taken cognizance of the order dated 14.03.1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 1306 of 1979 (Krishna Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P.) wherein all the dispute was put at rest with regard to the aforesaid ceiling proceedings. He submits that infact the order passed by the prescribed authority was challenged before the appellate authority by the present petitioner and that too was decided and the appeal was dismissed on 25.01.1990 upholding the order passed by the prescribed authority on the same premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention that infact the issue with regard to gatas to which the present petitioner is tenure holder was not before the High Court while deciding the issue on 07.11.1984. The dispute was before the High Court with regard to land which was claimed by the husband of the petitioner namely Raja Krishna Pratap Singh and as such this issue was never considered in order to dealt with by the High Court and as such the issue is still open for the authorities concerned to decide a fresh.
He further added that infact no opportunity of hearing was given to the present petitioner and further the objection which was taken by the petitioner was not properly considered as there was a document with regard to judicial separation where Raja Krishan Pratap Singh having the different entity of tenure holder than the petitioner and as such the prescribed authority or the appellate authority have wrongly rejected the plea of the present petitioner on the premises that the matter has already been put into rest by the High Court. He further submits that infact both the authorities have not considered the pleading raised and that has been dismissed on the wrong facts as such those assails with illegality and perversity.
On the other hand, Sri. J.P.Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State very vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention and drawn attention towards order passed by the prescribed authority dated 03.02.1975. He submits that after perusal of the issue no. 3, it is evident that the land which was claimed by Raja Krishna Pratap Singh i.e., Gata no. 630, 633, 635, 638, 639, 641, 642, 649, 629, 354, 210 and 58 as a bagh bhoomi, had simultaneously been claimed by the present petitioner while submitting her objection before the prescribed authority. Later on he submits that it is also evident from the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 19.02.1986 that the same number of gatas are mentioned which was claimed by the Raja Krishna Pratap Singh and further she has failed to demonstrate her possession or title beyond doubt over the land in question.
He also added that objection was filed before the prescribed authority on 08.03.1984 and that too was decided on 19.02.1986 though the matter was finally drawn up to the High Court and the High Court has decided the matter vide judgment and order dated 14.03.1984 and as such the controversy with regard to aforesaid gatas were finalised. He submits that infact if the present petitioner had any objection she could have challenged the order passed by the High Court and now at this stage it is not open for her to challenge any of the order of any authority with respect to the aforesaid gatas as the judgment of 14.03.19684 has attained finality.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that the present petitioner submitted the objection on 07.11.1984, first time before the prescribed authority while showing that there was a judicial separation between Raja Krishna Pratap Singh and the present petitioner and she had claimed that she is the original tenure holder of the original gata and as such Raja Krishna Pratap Singh had no right to claim the aforesaid gatas before the prescribed authority and as the decision taken by the prescribed authority was on the wrong premises and that assails perversity. Further this matter has already been decided vide judgement and order dated 14.03.1984 passed by this Court and as such it was not open for the authorities to go into the controversy as raised by the petitioner and as such the appellate authority and the prescribed authority has rightly passed the order aforesaid.
Further learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any such document which could show that the petitioner was the original tenure holder of the aforesaid land and even the prescribed authority while deciding the issue no. 3 has mentioned the fact that the gatas and land which are being claimed by the present petitioner had already been given by the Raja Krishna Prtap Singh claiming the same as bagh bhoomi.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no interference in the order passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022
Ujjawal
