Allahabad High Court
Jagdeo Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Collector ... on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32471
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000415 of 1992
Petitioner :- Jagdeo Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Collector Kheri And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar,Kaushal Kishore,S.C.Srivastava,Ziauddin Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000353 of 1992
Petitioner :- Channan Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Washim,Pawan Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000535 of 1992
Petitioner :- Smt. Sarjeet Kaur
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar,Kaushal Kishore,Nirmal Tiwari,S.C. Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. On earlier two dates the time was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners for preparation and argue but none is present on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition nor there is any request to adjourn the case.
2. The cases are of the year 1992.
3. These petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority, Nighashan under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act by means of which the objections of the petitioners alongwith others have been rejected and the orders by which the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioners are claiming the benefit of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Writ-C No.1000541 of 1992; Satnam Kaur Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, therefore the following order was passed on 21.03.2023.
"Shri Kaushal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical issue has been decided by means of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Writ-C No.1000541 of 1992; Satnam Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the case in hand is covered by the same, Shri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to go through the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench and apprise the Court as to whether the case in hand is covered by the judgment or not.
List on 28.03.2023."
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Satnam Kaur Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (supra) because in the present case the agreement to sale was executed after 24.01.1971 and the total sale consideration was not paid, whereas in the said case of Satnam Kaur (Supra), the total sale consideration was paid as per the judgement and order dated 26.04.2022.
5. In view of above, since the agreement to sale was executed after 24.01.1971 and only a part of sale consideration was paid as per the agreement to sale, therefore a categorical finding has been recorded by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority that the land in dispute in the case in hand was sold only to save it from the provisions of ceiling. In the case of Satnam Kaur Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (Supra) the agreement to sale related to the property in question was executed between 21.03.1970 to 01.01.1971 and all the consideration was paid at the time of agreement and possession was also given in pursuance of the agreement and the sale deed was executed between 26.07.1971 to 17.10.1973, therefore there is no illegality or error in the impugned orders and the petitioners are not entitled for any benefit of the said order.
6. Dismissed accordingly.
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
Haseen U.
