Allahabad High Court
Ram Swaroop vs Prescribed ... on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000044 of 1997
Petitioner :- Ram Swaroop
Respondent :- Prescribed Authority/Addl.Collector
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.C.Mukherjee,Ripu Daman Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.11.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate order dated 28.02.1997 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially a notice was issued under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 in the year around 1973-74 and after the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 03.12.1975 declaring 12 Bigha 2 bishwa 15 biswanshi land as surplus from the holdings of the petitioner by treating the holdings of one Sri Raj Narayan as holding of the petitioner. Against the order dated 03.12.1975, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.05.1976. In the said judgment, it has specifically been held that the Prescribed Authority had not approached in a correct legal manner and ignored the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Unnao on the ground that it was based on sham and collusive compromise. The evidence on record led by the appellant as well as Raj Narayan shows that the latter was in possession over the plots in question as co-tenure holder and further held that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 23.12.1972 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Unnao for recording Raj Narayan as co-tenure holder along with the present appellant over the plots in question could not be ignored and had to be given effect to and the findings of the Prescribed Authority to the contrary cannot be upheld.
3. The Prescribed Authority after the judgment in the appeal had withdrawn the notice issued under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 against the petitioner vide its order dated 17.01.1977.
4. After about 14 years, the second notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.06.1991 while exercising powers under Section 29 of the Act, 1960. The said notice does not disclose any of the grounds available for issuance of the second notice and as per the law settled in the case of Indra Pal Mishra vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act) and Ors. [(2005) 98 RD 699 (All.)], unless conditions mentioned under Section 29 of the Act, 1960 are fulfilled, no decided case can be re-opened as has been done by the authorities by the orders impugned.
5. It is further submitted that under Section 29 of the Act, 1960, a provision has been made for determination of the ceiling area in case there is any future acquisition by the tenure holder. As per the law settled in the case of Ram Chandra vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2020) 4 ADJ 535] whereas in the case of the petitioner, neither any fresh acquisition has been made nor any un-irrigated land was converted into an irrigated land. It is further submitted that after the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 20.11.1992 against the petitioner without determination of irrigated land as required under Section 4-A of the Act, 1960 and had completely ignored that the issue with regard to the land holding of Raj Narayan has already attained finality by the appellate order dated 17.05.1976 and it cannot be re-opened by the Prescribed Authority unless or until the appellate order was challenged in the higher court. It is further submitted that after the appellate order dated 17.05.1976, the notice was withdrawn by the Prescribed Authority, the said cannot be reviewed by the Prescribed Authority.
6. It is further submitted that against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.1997 without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal and simply followed or dittoed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the second notice issued against the petitioner as some part of the land has been converted from un-irrigated to irrigated land. For that, the second notice could be issued as per Section 29-B of the Act.
8. It is further submitted that as far as the holding of Raj Narayan is concerned, till date no entry has been made in the name of Raj Narayan in the revenue records.
9. Considering the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the second notice was issued on 29.06.1991 without disclosing any of the ingredients provided under Section 29 of the Act, 1960. Neither it is mentioned in the notice that the petitioner has acquired some more area which exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him nor the area by which the un-irrigated land became irrigated.
10. From perusal of the order dated 20.11.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority, it also reveals that the procedure provided under Section 4-A of the Act, 1960 relating to determination of irrigated land has not been followed and the orders have been passed in contravention of the same.
11. The issue relating to the holding of Raj Narayan has already attained finality by the appellate order dated 17.05.1976 and in pursuance thereof, the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 had already been withdrawn then there is no occasion for the authorities to re-open the matter which has attained finality. The name of Raj Narayan is not entered in the revenue records which will not make any difference since the rights of Raj Narayan in the holding have already been upheld by the appellate authority by means of order dated 17.05.1976.
12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 20.11.1992 & 28.02.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector, Unnao and the appellate authority respectively are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022
Nitesh
