Amrik Singh And Others vs Addl. Commissioner And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25521 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:61533
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000177 of 1995
 

 
Petitioner :- Amrik Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri V. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27.2.1990 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 17.11.1995 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order of the Prescribed Authority has been affirmed.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) was issued by the Prescribed Authority to respondent No.3. The objections were filed by him and the proceedings were concluded by means of order dated 31.1.1975 whereby certain land of respondent No.3 were held to be surplus. Respondent No.3 never challenged the order of Prescribed Authority before any forum and, hence, the said order became final.

4. The present case of the petitioner is that certain land of the petitioner were included in the land so declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority in his order dated 31.1.1975 and it is only when possession of the land was sought to be taken that the petitioner came to know about the proceedings under the Act of 1960 and accordingly preferred objections under Section 11 (2) before the Prescribed Authority. In the said objections it was stated that the said land has been purchased by the petitioner prior to cut off date i.e. 23.3.1970 and accordingly the said land could not have been included in the holdings of respondent No.3. The Prescribed Authority by means of a detailed order dated 9.12.1985 allowed the objections filed by the petitioner and excluded his land from the holdings of respondent No.3. The said order dated 9.12.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority also became final as no appeal as preferred challenging the said order.

5. The grievance leading to the present petition has arisen when the proceedings under the Act of 1960 were initiated against the brother of respondent No.3 one Mr. Venktesh Pratap Singh i.e. respondent No.5. Against Venktesh Pratap Singh also notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1960 was issued and against him also order was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 31.1.1975. The petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings against Venktesh Pratap Singh and consequently no objections were filed before the Prescribed Authority.

6. The petitioner submits that they came to know about the proceedings and the order dated 31.1.1975 only in the year 1987 and consequently they filed their objections 18.6.1987 under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority by means of the impugned order dated 27.2.1990 rejected the objections preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which also rejected the appeal vide order dated 17.11.1995 upholding the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority.

7. While rejecting the appeal of the petitioner it was held that in case the petitioner was aware of proceedings conducted against Mahesh Shah - brother of Venktesh Pratap Singh then he would necessarily have knowledge about the proceedings being held against Venktesh Pratap Singh and on the basis of the such presumptions it was held that despite the knowledge the petitioner did not file his objections within time and consequently his objections were rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing both the orders has submitted that the petitioner was conscious of his rights throughout and had participated in the proceedings and challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.1.1975 passed in the case of Mahesh Shah and his objections were duly considered and allowed on 9.12.1985. He submits that it is merely because of want of knowledge with regard to the proceedings being held against Venktesh Pratap Singh that he did not file his objections in the said ceiling case and had he any knowledge of the said order there is no reason as to why he would not have filed his objections with regard to the proceedings held against Venktesh Pratap Singh. He has further submitted that merely on account of presumptions the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 1960 took place and notification has been issued while the objections filed by the petitioner are liable to be considered by the Prescribed Authority. In support of his submissions he has relied upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Baldeo Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1980 LLJ 31, the relevant portion of which is as under:-"A person whose right has been affected by an order of the Tribunal without giving him an opportunity of hearing heard can, in my view, seek redress before that authority and resist his dispossession. He can contend that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the Collector can lawfully take possession of the land from him without adjudication upon his rights therein and the statement prepared by the Prescribed authority was wrong."

10. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and has supported the impugned orders. He submits that no objections were filed by the petitioner with regard to the proceedings held in respect of the holdings of Venktesh Pratap Singh and there was delay.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. It is noticed that with regard to the holdings of Mahesh Shah the proceedings had become final on passing of the order dated 31.1.1975 by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner had filed his objections after a delay of nearly ten years and his objections were duly accepted by the Prescribed Authority on 9.12.1985 with regard to the proceedings held against the original tenure holder i.e. Venktesh Pratap Singh, the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on the same date i.e. 31.1.1975 he filed his objections under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1960 on 18.6.1987. Once the petitioner had appeared before the Prescribed Authority and placed his contentions that he had acquired the said land on the basis of a sale deed which was registered prior to the cutoff date and the Prescribed Authority by means of his order dated 9.12.1985 and allowed the said objections. Merely because the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority in the case of Mahendra Shah he cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings against Venktesh Pratap Singh (respondent No.5) and that his lands have been shown to have been included in his holding.

13. A further perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority indicates that merely on the basis of presumptions that the petitioner should have had the knowledge of the proceedings in the case of Venktesh Pratap Singh and, therefore, he should have participated in the same cannot be accepted as there is no material placed either before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority which could indicate that in fact the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings in the case of Venktesh Pratap Singh.

14. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Prescribed Authority himself had condoned the delay of ten years while deciding the objections of the petitioner in the case of Mahesh Shah and there is no reason as to why his application in the case of Venktesh Pratap Singh should have been rejected merely on the ground of delay and latches and they have also considered the fact that the case of the petitioner has been adequately considered by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the case of the Mahesh Shah this Court is of the considered view that both the authorities have acted arbitrarily while rejecting his application and holding that the objections were filed with delay. The rejection of the application by the Prescribed Authority on ground of delay is clearly arbitrary, hence, liable to be set aside and the objections of the petitioner are liable to the considered on merits.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by Prescribed Authority dated 27.2.1990 as well as the order dated 17.11.1995 passed by the appellate authority are set aside.

16. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioner on 18.6.1987, expeditiously.

17. Considering the fact that the petitioner is already before the Prescribed Authority and have further steps have to be taken and the matter be decided expeditiously say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

18. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and will not take any unnecessary adjournments.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 20.9.2023

RKM.