Narendra Bahadur Singh vs Addl. Commissioner Faizabad
2022 Latest Caselaw 8803 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000053 of 1995
 
Petitioner :- Narendra Bahadur Singh
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Faizabad
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aporva Kumar,Bal Krishna Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 31.03.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority Ceiling, Gonda declaring 6.944 acres of land as surplus area of Parmeshwar Dutt Singh, the father of the present petitioners and further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 10.04.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dismissing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960') was issued to Late Parmeshwar Dutt Singh, father of the present petitioners, who had filed his objections. One of the objections was the land holding of the mother of the petitioner was wrongly taken in his holding for determining the surplus land. As the said land subsequently was inherited by the sons of the petitioners i.e. present petitioners before this Court in pursuance of the will executed by their grandmother i.e. mother of Late Parmeshwar Dutt Singh.

3. It is further submitted that the claim of the father of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority against which an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed and feeling aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 1605 of 1978, which has finally been decided by this Court vide its judgment/order dated 30.06.1980, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure no. 1 to the present writ petition. This Court while allowing the writ petition remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority and directed to re-determine the surplus land after giving opportunity to the parties.

4. This Court while allowing the writ petition had given a clear finding that Jamwanti Kunwar, grandmother of the present petitioners had obtained a decree in the year 1961. She is said to have executed a will in favour of her grandsons and their name were entered by the Lekhpal in the revenue records. The operative portion of the order dated 30.06.1980 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"So far as holding of Jamwanti Kunwar is concerned in 1961 a decree was obtained by her. She is said to have executed a will in favour of her grandsons and their name were entered by the Lekhpal and the same was not challenged by the State at any stage earlier. The District Judge without entering into the question in detail rejected the plea on the ground that the holding devolved on Parmeshwar Dutt if Jamwanti Kunwar executed a will in favour of grandsons and the Revenue authorities accepted the same and mutated the name of grandson the same was to be considered and given weight. Prima facie evidence regarding existence of will being their, but if the same was not sufficient or there was a dispute in respect of the same, the evidence was to be tendered into, but the same has not been done. It is not clear whether will was on record or not. In these circumstances the order passed by the District Judge so far as this court is concerned cannot be sustained."

5. The Prescribed Authority while deciding or re-determining the issue of surplus land had not considered any of the observations made in favour of the father of the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court and has not given any finding that the name was entered in the revenue records by the Lekhpal and the same was not challenged by the State at any stage earlier. The matter has been decided by the Prescribed Authority by simply stating therein that despite sufficient opportunity was given to prove the will but the will was neither produced nor proved by the petitioners.

6. It is further submitted that the matter was heard by some other Chief Revenue Officer cum Prescribed Authority Ceiling but had not passed any order. Thereafter another person had been posted, who took the charge and without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing and without hearing the matter, passed the order dated 31.03.1992. The matter was heard by the earlier Officer and the order was passed by some other Officer and this specific plea taken in Para 11 of the writ petition has neither been disputed nor denied in para 12 of the counter affidavit.

7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has submitted that in compliance of the order of the High Court, several opportunities were given to the petitioner but he was unable to produce the will before the court below nor able to prove the same and this Hon'ble Court, apart from other directions also directed to re-consider the issue in the light of the will, as such, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the appellate authority.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that the law is settled as laid down in the case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao and Ors. vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Ors. [AIR 1959 SC 308 (V 46 C 43] holding that the authority, who hears the matter is supposed to decide the same and the person who had not heard cannot decide the same. In the present case, it is an admitted case of the State as well that the matter was heard by some other Chief Revenue Officer whereas the order was passed by another Officer. Relevant paragraph of the judgement in the case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao (supra) is being quoted hereinbelow, for ready reference:-

"While the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. Therefore the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure."

9. This Court vide its order dated 30.06.1980 has given a finding that as far as holding of Jamwanti Kunwar is concerned in 1961 a decree was obtained by her. She is said to have executed a will in favour of her grandsons i.e. present petitioners and their names were entered by the Lekhpal and the same was not challenged by the State at any stage, meaning hereby it is an undisputed fact that in the revenue records, the names of the petitioners are still in existence which fact has not been taken into consideration nor the correctness of the revenue records has been challenged or disputed. The Prescribed Authority while passing the order has not given any finding in its order regarding the decree obtained by late Jamwanti Kunwar in her favour, the enteries in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of the will which has never been challenged by the State and the enteries are still in existence in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records and rejected the claim of the petitioners. The appellate authority has also failed to consider all these things and also failed to consider that the matter was heard by some different Officer whereas the order was passed by some other Officer without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners prior to rejecting the claim.

10. From the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 31.03.1992 & 10.04.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority Ceiling, Gonda and the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad respectively are hereby quashed.

12. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to re-determine the surplus land after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties & decide the matter in the light of the observations made in this judgment.

Order Date :- 2.8.2022/Nitesh