Allahabad High Court
Chandra Bhushan Singh vs Addl. Commissioner And Others on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000164 of 1995
Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Singh
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Singh,Amit Singh,Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt,U S Sahai,Yogesh Kesarwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of the appellate order dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the order dated 31.03.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier also against the order dated 26.02.1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Order dated 19.08.1976, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 3193 of 1976 (Ceiling).
The said writ petition was allowed by this Court in part vide its judgment and order dated 07.04.1982. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part, and the findings of the Prescribed Authority on issues 1 and 2 only are here by quashed. The other findings of the Prescribed Authority as conffirmed by The District Judge shall remain unaffected. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the issues 1 and 2 afresh in accordance with law in the light of the directions given above and there after pass fresh orders in regard to declaration of surplus land after considering the choice indicated by the petitioner. No order as to costs"
It is further submitted that the issue no. 1 as referred in the operative part is at internal page no. 2 of the judgment, which is quoted hereunder.
"Another point urged on behalf of the petitioner was that excepting plot no. 624 all other plots held by the petitioner were irrigated. Support of this claim the filed. As res for the years 1378 and 1380. This plea as however, been rejected merely on the ground that the Khasra for 1379 F had not been produced. It is not clear as to whether any Khasra for 1379 F was at all prepared. The Prescribed Authority ought to have verified the fact and should itself have consulted the Khasra for 1379F as well, if it existed instead of merely relying on the burden of proof which it laid against the petitioner Authority the duty to decide the question with reference, inter the alis to the Khasras for 1378 to 1380F. Thus, this finding cannot be sustained and the matter requires to be decided afresh."
It is further submitted that from the conjoint reading of both the paras of the judgment of this Court, the direction which was issued to the prescribed authority is to look into the khasra for 1379 Fasli and then decide the matter. It is further submitted that in the first remand order of the appellate court to the prescribed authority dated 26.07.1985 wherein also the then appellate authority has remanded the matter to the prescribed authority for deciding the issue afresh in the light of the observations made above and also in the light of the direction given by this Court vide its judgement and order dated 07.04.1982. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
"The appeal is allowed in part in far as the findings on issue no. 1 is concerned. The case is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for deciding this issue afresh in the light of the observations made above and also in the light of the directions given by the Hon'ble High court Judgment dated 07.04.1982. I may make it that in this case Prescribed Authority make the local inspection and then pointedly to take notice of tubewell and their command area along with the crops grow in the plot in question. The findings on issue is confirmed. The Prescribed Authority shall also consider the choice given by the tenure holder before this Court in appeal. The cost of the appeal shall be easy on the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear in Court below on 09.08.1985."
From the above, it is clear that despite the judgment and order of this Court and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the Prescribed Authority again decided the matter without looking into the 1379 Fasli and in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 09.03.1992, there is reference of only 1378 & 1380 Fasli and the same is in the order of the appeal, which is under challenge in the present petition.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the authorities which are subject matter of the present petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the record, the position which emerges out in the present case is that this court vide its judgment and order dated 07.04.1982 while remanding back matter to the Prescribed Authority had directed to decide the matter afresh by looking into record of 1379 Fasli and the same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment and order dated 26.07.1985. Despite the aforesaid directions, when the matter was decided by the Prescribed Authority again, it has been decided on the basis of 1378 & 1380 and there is no whisper that records of 1379 Fasli were seen by the Prescribed Authority as directed by this Court in its judgment and order dated 07.04.1982.
It is an undisputed fact that the judgment passed by this Court is still hold good as no appeal or review was preferred by the State against that order.
It is surprising that despite clear and specific directions given by this Court while remanding this case have been conveniently ignored by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the matter after remand. The appellate authority also does not seem to have given proper attention to the directions given by the High Court and affirmed the decision of the Prescribed Authority dated 09.03.1992.
For the facts and reasons discussed above, the present writ petition is allowed. The appellate order dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the order dated 31.03.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) are hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same afresh, as per the observations made and directions given by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 07.04.1982 passed in W.P. No. 3193 of 1976.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022
Nitesh
