Allahabad High Court
Lt. Colonel Mahendra Pratap Singh ... vs Addl. Commissioner Meerut And ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20352 of 2002
Petitioner :- Lt. Colonel Mahendra Pratap Singh Andothers
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Meerut And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Nikhil Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Nikhil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Ranjan Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the appellate order dated 15.02.2002 passed by Additional Commissioner in Ceiling Appeal No. 40 under Section 13 of The U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and order dated 26.02.1981 passed by Prescribed Authority.
3. The case in nutshell, is that petitioner nos. 1 to 6 purchased land situated in Village- Pandaria, through registered sale-deed dated 01.06.1960 executed by five joint bhumidhars namely Hamid Mohammad Khan, Mukhtar Ahmad Beg, Niamatullah, Abdul Mohammad and Smt. Shafiq Ara Begum. While petitioner no. 7 was allotted land by resolution of Land Management Committee in Village- Pandaria vide resolution dated 10.08.1963. All the petitioners are in possession over the land since then. Proceedings under the Act was initiated by issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act against the original tenure holder, Onkar Singh which was registered as Case No. 166 of 1976 and against Yudhishthir Singh which was registered as Case No. 137 of 1976. The holding of the petitioners was also included in the holding of Onkar Singh. The prescribed authority found Onkar Singh to be in excess of the land and declared 224.015 acres as surplus while 27.2 acres of land of Yudhishthir was declared surplus. The order of prescribed authority dated 21.10.1978 was challenged through two ceiling appeals being Appeal No. 141 and 142. The appellate court remanded back the matter to the Prescribed Authority to be decided afresh by the order dated 09.11.1979. Petitioners before this Court filed their respective objections before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority found that the area of Yudhishthir Singh which was declared surplus earlier did not find any error while the prescribed authority declared 107 acres of land of Onkar Singh as surplus. The order dated 26.02.1981 passed by Prescribed Authority was challenged through four ceiling appeals being Ceiling Appeal Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41. Petitioner no. 1 before this Court filed Ceiling Appeal No. 40. All the four appeals were heard and decided by a common order dated 15.02.2002 and were dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Against the dismissal of Ceiling Appeal No. 38 and 39, Smt. Premvati and another filed Writ-C No. 13359 of 2002 before this Court challenging the order passed by appellate authority as well as by prescribed authority. The ground taken in the writ petition was that as Naib Tehsildar had appeared before the Prescribed Authority and made statement but no opportunity was given to petitioners to cross-examine him and on the basis of statement so made the finding has been recorded and order of appellate authority as well as prescribed authority was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the prescribed authority.
5. Present writ petition has been assailed on the ground that sale-deed was executed on 01.06.1960 and petitioner no. 7 was allotted land in the year 1963 by Land Management Committee after a resolution was made in her favour. Further, ground has been taken that petitioner no. 1 was major at the time when the ceiling proceedings were launched and the same cannot be clubbed with original tenure holder, Onkar Singh while proceedings declaring surplus land was initiated.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State while opposing the writ petition submitted that writ petition filed by other tenure holders had been allowed to the extent that matter has been remanded back to Prescribed Authority. The matter of the present tenure holder should also be relegated to Prescribed Authority as it was by a common judgment that all appeals were decided. He further contended that it was on the oral testimony of Naib Tehsildar that appellate authority had recorded a finding that Onkar Singh was in the cultivatory possession over the land of petitioners. He defended the order passed by Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority.
7. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that petitioner nos. 1 to 6 had purchased the land through registered sale-deed on 01.06.1960. The said fact has neither been disputed by the prescribed authority nor by the appellate authority in its judgment under challenge. At the time of execution of the sale-deed, petitioners were major, and ceiling proceedings were initiated in the year 1976 where specific objection was taken by petitioner nos. 1 to 6 that they were major at the time sale-deed was executed and cannot be clubbed under the definition of 'family' as given in Section 3(7) of the Act.
9. As far as petitioner no. 7 is concerned, she was allotted land by Land Management Committee in the year 1963. Specific objections have been taken by all the 7 petitioners before the Prescribed Authority as well in the appeal filed before the appellate authority claiming that their land cannot be clubbed with that of original tenure holder, Onkar Singh against whom proceedings were launched.
10. Both the authorities have failed to record any finding as to how the land of the petitioners can be clubbed with that of Onkar Singh, the original tenure holder against whom the proceedings for declaring the land surplus was initiated in the year 1976, when the land was purchased in the year 1960 and allotment was made in the year 1963 and the said fact remained unrebutted by the State.
11. I find that in the appellate order, the Additional Commissioner had noted the fact that sale-deed exist prior to the cut-off date in favour of petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and land in favour of petitioner no. 7 was allotted by the Land Management Committee, but it has wrongly arrived at a finding that Onkar Singh was in cultivatory possession over the said land.
12. From perusal of the record, it is clear that Mahendra Pratap Singh and other petitioners had filed the copies of sale-deed as well as copy of resolution of the Land Management Committee along with their objections claiming that their land cannot be included with the land of Onkar Singh.
13. Definition of 'family' as given under Section 3(7) clearly provides that 'family' in relation to a tenure holder means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be, minor sons and minor daughters other than married daughters. It does not include a major son.
14. It is an admitted case that Mahendra Pratap Singh is the major son of original tenure holder, Onkar Singh who had purchased the land situated at Village- Pandaria which has been included in the ceiling proceedings initiated in the year 1976 , which the authorities cannot do, as he does not find place in the definition of the word, 'family' as given under the Act.
15. The finding recorded by the appellate authority on the basis of oral testimony of Naib Tehsildar that Onkar Sigh is in the cultivatory possession over the land of petitioners is totally against the material on record.
16. Moreover, all the petitioners along with their objections had brought on record the copy of sale-deed and the resolution of the Land Management Committee so as to demonstrate that they were holding land in their individual capacity, which cannot be clubbed with the land of Onkar Singh in ceiling proceeding of 1976.
17. In view of above, the orders dated 26.02.1981 passed by prescribed authority to the extent including land of petitioners and order dated 15.02.2002 passed by appellate authority in Ceiling Appeal No. 40 filed by petitioners are unsustainable in the eyes of law and both the orders are hereby set aside.
18. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023
V.S.Singh
