Rajendra Singh vs Addl. Commissioner Lucknow And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 981 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajendra Singh vs Addl. Commissioner Lucknow And Others on 14 May, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28121
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000012 of 2000
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.Sahai,Amit Mukherjee,Priti Saxena,U.S. Sahai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kushwaha
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority constituted under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1960' for short) whereby in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.1274 of 1981 the authorities were required to determine which of the plots were unirrigated and then the determination be made regarding the land to be declared surplus.

3. The said order was appealed before the respondent no.1 but even the Appellate Authority did not consider the directions issued by this Court, rather affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 31.12.1999 which persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to father of the petitioners who had filed the aforesaid proceedings. In the first round of litigation, the matter had come up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1274 of 1981 (Muneshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 22.08.1984, while allowing the writ petition in part, set-aside the order passed by the District Judge dated 21.01.1981 which was part of Anneuxre-3 of the said writ petition which was partly quashed and the District Judge was directed to restore the appeal to its original number and thereafter consider which of the plots were unirrigated and then decide the controversy in accordance with law. It was further noted by this Court that findings on any other point cannot be reopened. It is in furtherance thereof that the matter came up before the Prescribed Authority and it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the petitioners had raised objections regarding several plots, it is only plot no. 290, which came to be inspected and the findings have been given. Specific plea of the petitioners regarding several other plots being unirrigated was not taken note of.

5. It is further submitted that being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal and even before the Appellate Authority the aforesaid plea was raised that several plots which were unirrigated has not been noticed despite the directions issued by this Court in this regard. It is urged that the Appellate Authority, also being oblivious to the directions given by this Court, merely affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority by means of order impugned dated 31.12.1999 and as such the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are contrary to the directions of this Court as well as being arbitrary deserves to be set-aside.

6. Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, has attempted to state that it was only plot no. 290 which was insisted upon by the petitioners and the same was inspected. Upon inspection and taking note of plot no. 290, which was found to be unirrigated, the relevant consideration has been taken note of by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter deducting it from the land of the petitioner fresh determination was made. It is urged that the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and being concluded by findings of fact, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material on record, this Court finds that before the Prescribed Authority the father of the petitioners on 30.10.1974 had moved an application for amendment wherein in paras-5 and 6 apart from plot no. 290 several other plots were mentioned with a specific contention that the same were unirrigated. The record further indicates that in the first round of litigation this aspect did not find favour with either the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority.

8. Being aggrieved, the father of the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1274 of 1981 which came to be partly allowed by means of judgment dated 22.08.1984. At this stage, it is relevant to notice the observations made by the coordinate Bench in the order dated 22.08.1984 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:

"The writ petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the District Judge dated 21.1.81 contained in annexure 3 to the writ petition is partly quashed and the District Judge is directed to restore back the case to its original number in respect of the plea raised by the petitioner that particular plots held by him were unirrigated and thereafter shall decide it in accordance with law. The findings on other points shall not be reopened. There will be no order as to costs."

9. Having taken note of the aforesaid portion, which has been quoted above, it would reveal that this Court had directed the Court concerned to take note of the plots for which it has been clearly stated that they were unirrigated. In this light, if the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is seen, it would reveal that the findings have been given only in respect of plot no.290. The record would further indicate that after the order was passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31.01.1997, the petitioners had preferred an appeal. The copy of memo of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure-SA-1 dated 24.02.2000. From perusal of memo of the appeal, it would indicate that in paras-1, 2 and 3 specific grounds were taken regarding non-consideration of the plea of the unirrigated land. This Court further finds that in the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated dated 31.12.1999 the Appellate Authority has recorded the submission of learned counsel for the appellant (petitioners herein) regarding non-consideration of the plea of unirrigated land in respect of several plots but no finding has been given except for plot no. 290.

10. This Court is of the view that once this Court had directed the Court concerned to consider the plea of unirrigated land and the said plea had been taken by the petitioners, including by moving an application for amendment which had been allowed as per the learned counsel for the petitioners then it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority to have taken note of the same. Merely to state that the petitioners pressed only for plot no. 290 also is belied by the fact that while the petitioners had filed the appeal a specific ground no. 3 in this regard was taken note of.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, where there was a clear direction issued by this Court in its order dated 22.08.1984, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have re-determine the ceiling limit after considering the issue of unirrigated land as mentioned by the petitioners. In absence of any finding in this regard, the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority dated 31.01.1997 and 31.12.1999 are quashed/set-aside. The matter shall stand restored before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners shall appear before the Prescribed Authority on 20th May, 2025. The Prescribed Authority shall, after considering the plea of the petitioners regarding unirrigated land in light of the directions already issued by this Court in its order dated 22.08.1984, shall re-determine the extent of the unirrigated land, preferably within a period three months from the date the parties appear before the Prescribed Authority.

13. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

.

[Jaspreet Singh,J.]

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

MVS/-