Allahabad High Court
Akbal Bahadur And Others vs State Of U.P.Through Collector Gonda ... on 18 April, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22426
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000030 of 2000
Petitioner :- Akbal Bahadur And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Gonda And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- M.A.Khan,Mohammad Aslam Khan,Mohd. Aslam Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 03.05.2000 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 24.06.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority.
3. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that ceiling proceedings under the The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960") was initiated against the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner namely Raj Dutt.
4. Sri Raj Datt has executed a will in favour of the petitioners and upon his death, the entire property was inherited, however, once the notice under Section 10 (2) was issued, the petitioners have filed their objections where a specific ground have been taken that the large tracts of the land in question is sandy, submerged in water and it has drains and also has abadi inter alia large part was 'user' land.
5. It was further stated that there were large groves on the said land and in order to undertake the proceedings, it was first required to determine the land which was subjected to ceiling proceedings in terms of Section 4 and Section 4-A of the Act of 1960.
6. The further submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that while the said proceedings were going on, the village in question was subjected to consolidation operations in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
7. It was also brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority that since the consolidation operations are underway, it would be appropriate to consider the determination of early level after the proceedings ended in the consolidation operations.
8. It has been pointed out that the documents relating to the consolidation operations relating to the property of the petitioners in terms of CH Form-41 was placed before the Prescribed Authority which have been completely ignored.
9. It was urged that first and foremost the State had initiated the proceedings. The consolidation proceedings are also initiated at the behest of the State and they had ample documents. There was no effort made by the State-respondents to examine the consolidation records. The only evidence which was led on behalf of the State was by examining the Lekhpal namely Indraprasad who merely gave a short statement that he had examined the records and made a physical examination and his report which has been filed is correct. This has been taken note of by the Prescribed Authority while passing the order dated 24.06.1998.
10. It has been pointed out that specific three issues were framed by the Prescribed Authority but the findings are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, in one part of the order, it has not been indicated that the petitioners have not filed any documents relating to consolidation operations, however, while dealing with issue no. 1, it has taken note of the said documents but completely ignored to assess the impact of the said documents.
11. It is urged that the findings recorded in so far as the issue nos. (1) and (ii) is concerned, if seen in context with the documents which have been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 with the writ petition, it would indicate that the Prescribed Authority has completely misread the said documents. The findings apparently are rendered perverse and in such circumstances there was no determination of the land as required in terms of Section 4 and Section 4-A of the Act of 1960, hence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was patently erroneous.
12. It has further been submitted that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was assailed in the statutory appeal. It is urged that even before the First Appellate Court, the orders were reserved on 26.04.2000 fixing 03.05.2000 as the date pronouncement for judgment. It is further submitted that from the order passed by the First Appellate Court which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 7, it would indicate that after the matter was reserved for orders, the Appellate Authority issued a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to make an inspection of the land in question and submit its report. The First Appellate Court has taken note of the said report dated 01.05.2000 which was called for without notice to the petitioners and that too after the hearing had concluded and the judgment was reserved.
13. The submission is that the First Appellate Court had committed a grave jurisdictional error to have called for any material for verification behind the back of the appellant (the petitioner herein) that too after the judgment had been reserved.
14. The proceedings before the First Appellate Court are conducted in terms of the procedure contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, in the instant case, the manner in which the procedure has been adopted it is alien to the provisions of Order 41 C.P.C.
15. It has further been urged that even the First Appellate Court has completely misread the documents available on record and contradictory findings have been recorded. The documents furnished and available on record which were records of the Consolidation Authorities indicated large tracts being covered as grove, submerged in river, abadi, Rasta, however, the same has not been taken note of rather on the basis of the alleged inspection report dated 01.05.2000 made by the SDM, Karnailganj, the findings have been recorded which renders the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court 03.05.2000 susceptible to judicial interference and for the said reasons, as a consequence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
16. Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has urged that in so far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the Khata of the original tenure holder being joint is concerned, there is clear finding based on material on record to indicate that they were all singularly recorded in the name of Raj Datt, thus, to state that the said plots were recorded in the name of Raj Datt with the other tenure holders does not find credence.
17. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the issue regarding the grove and abadi land has also been considered by the Prescribed Authority while dealing with issue no. (ii) and (iii).
18. It has also been urged that the Prescribed Authority as well as the First Appellate Court has taken note of the evidence available on record and has recorded findings which are pure findings of fact and in such circumstances, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
19. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.
20. This Court finds that there is a specific averment made in the objections filed by the petitioner, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. (1) to the writ petition, more particularly, in paragraph 11 that the land in question comprises of various plots which are sandy, submerged in water, has a drain and is of 'user' category.
21. It will also be relevant to notice that the petitioners have filed the photocopies of certified copies of CH Form 41 as Annexure No. 4 where the land holdings in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners namely Raj Datt has been shown wherein there are several entries regarding plots being recorded as grove land, abadi and Rasta. It also includes large number of plots affected by river submergence.
22. What is significant to note that the Prescribed Authority in its judgment dated 24.06.1998 while recording the narrative of facts has taken note of the documents filed by the petitioners and it has confined that certain documents relating to the original will of the tenure holder Raj Datt, order of mutation and certain other related documents including a decree based on compromise dated 12.03.1961 has been brought on record.
23. It has also taken note of the oral evidence led on behalf of the petitioners through its witnesses and thereafter it has gone on to frame three issues for consideration.
24. If the earlier part of the decisions is taken note of, it gives an impression as if apart from the documents as mentioned above, no other document was filed on behalf of the petitioners, however, while dealing with issue no. (i), it has taken note of that there are CH Form 41 which has been placed on record, however, there is nothing to indicate as to whether the said documents i.e. CH Form 41 which has been brought on record by the petitioner as annexure no. 4 are the ones which were filed before the Prescribed Authority. It also does not take note of the impact as well as the contents of those documents.
25. It is relevant to notice that the ceiling proceedings are initiated at the behest of the State. The consolidation proceedings are also initiated at the behest of the State. The documents are prepared at the behest of the State. In case if the ceiling proceedings which are initiated at the behest of the State and it is common knowledge that once a notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is issued, it is notice to all including the State-Authorities.In such circumstances, it was the duty of the State-Authorities to have taken note of the consolidation records.
26. Once, the consolidation records were considered and if the document brought on record as Annexure No. 4 is taken note of then it was incumbent upon the State-Authorities to have taken note as well as the assess the impact of the various plots which were recorded under certain different heads which was a relevant consideration while determining the ceiling of the land concerned in terms of Section 4 and Section 4-A of the Act of 1960. By a cursory order, the said documents have been ignored or it can be said to have been brushed aside. Thus, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority cannot be said to be based on cogent evidence and material on record.
27. At this stage, it will also be relevant to notice that on behalf of the State, only the Lekhpal Indraprasad was examined and a copy of the statement has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3. He has also given a cursory statement without connecting any documents and in such circumstances, it could not be said that the findings which have been returned by the Prescribed Authority are appropriately corroborated by the evidence available on record.
28. In furtherance of what has been noticed above, it could not be disputed by the State-respondents that the appeal was heard and reserved for orders on 24.06.2000 fixing 03.05.2000 for pronouncement of the judgment.
29. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 7, it would reveal that it has taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant (petitioner herein) that about 48 acres of land was submerged and could not be taken for determining the ceiling. The judgment goes on to state that as the inspection report was called for, the SDM, Karnailganj who has submitted his report dated 01st May, 2000 which has been taken note of and the findings has been recorded that on the basis of the said inspection, the land as claimed by the petitioners to be submerged is not as such.
30. This Court is unable to comprehend that once the judgment had been reserved on 26.04.2000 then under which provision and power without notice to the petitioner, such an inspection could have been done and could have been taken note of to base a finding made by the Appellate Authority.
31. It is not disputed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable to the proceedings then whether after the judgment is reserved, the Appellate Authority had the power to call for evidence/report suo moto and without notice to the parties concerned and it relied upon to give its own finding is a procedure adopted which apparently is not supported by any procedure known to law.
32. Thus, this Court is of the clear view that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Court in recording its findings is apparently erroneous. The issue which has been raised by the petitioner regarding the determination of the land for the purposes of ceiling has neither been undertaken by the Prescribed Authority nor by the First Appellate Court and to that extent, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner does hold substance.
33. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 24.06.1998 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 03.05.2000 both are patently and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and are liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.06.1998 and 03.05.2000 are quashed. The proceedings shall stand restored on the Board of the Prescribed Authority. Since the matter had been engaging the attention of this Court since 2000, it would be appropriate that the Prescribed Authority shall take note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and ensure that the proceedings are taken to its logical conclusion after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the material placed on record including any subsequent event which may have occurred during the pendency. The parties shall appear before the Prescribed Authority on 05th May, 2025 and thereafter the proceedings shall be conducted with dates being fixed at short intervals so that an endevour is made that the proceedings are decided finally preferrably within a period of 8 months from the date, the parties appear before the Prescribed Authority.
34. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and costs are made easy.
Order Date :- 18.4.2025
Asheesh/-
