GURPRIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-33
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 21,2012

Gurprit Singh and Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and two Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S. Verma, J. - (1.) SINCE the controversy involved in both these writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are being decided by this common judgment. By means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 5855 of 2001, the petitioners have sought the following relief: - I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of the opposite party No. 1 and 2 and summon the record of the case. II. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed. II(a) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the proceedings held under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 against the petitioners as void ab -initio.
(2.) BY means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 5856 of 2001, the petitioners have sought the following relief: - I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, direction or order and call for the record of the petitioners case and quash the impugned orders dated 29.11.82 (Annexure 1(a) and 1(b) and dated 15.2.88 (Annexure II to the petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed. II(a) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the proceedings held under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 against the petitioners as void ab -initio. III Award costs of the petition. Brief facts, giving rise to the writ petition No. 5855 of 2001 (Old No. 6328 of 1988), as emerges out from the record are that the petitioners are the joint tenure holders of the agricultural lands of Khatauni Khata Nos. 14 and 33 situated in village Fazalpur, Mahrola, Tehsil Kichha, district Nainital. It appears that after amendment made in the year 1973 in the U.P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 1960 Act), proceedings under the said Act were initiated against the petitioner Gurpreet Singh bearing Ceiling Case No. 51/27 of 1974 -75, State Vs. Gurpreet Singh. The Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer Kichha issued notices to each of the petitioners under sub -section (2) of Section 10 of 1960 Act calling upon them as to why the land of their holding in excess of the ceiling limit be not declared as surplus. An objection was raised before the Prescribed Authority that the entire land of the tenure holder is unirrigated and there is grove and banjar land for which no exemption has been given. Some other persons filed their objection contending that they purchased some of the land from the tenure holder by sale deed dated 22 -3 -1975. The learned Prescribed Authority found that the objectors were not tenure holder on 8 -6 -1973 therefore they are not entitled to file their objection. Petitioner Gurpreet Singh also did not file his objection, therefore, the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28 -4 -76 declared the land measuring 216 Bigha, 04 Biswa i.e. 13.69 Hectares of tenure holder Gurpreet Singh in terms of irrigated land as surplus. It also appears that a separate Ceiling Case No. 51/23 of 1974 -75 was registered against Harpreet Singh son of Sri Harpal Singh (petitioner No. 2 herein) and notice under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act was issued to him. The tenure holder filed his objection on 7 -11 -1974 asserting that the holing in his possession is un -irrigated and there is house, give, Ushar land for which exemption has to be given and that the tenure holder has already sold 50 acres to land from his holding to others, who are lessee over the said land. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenure holder had not disclosed the date of sale of land and the names of the purchasers. Some other persons also filed objections and contended that they have purchased the land from the tenure holder in the year 1973 -74. The Prescribed Authority found that none of those persons was a tenure holder on 8 -6 -1973, therefore, they have no right to file objection. It was also observed that the tenure holder did not lead any evidence to show that the sale deeds relied upon by the objectors were bona fide and for adequate consideration, therefore, the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30 -4 -1976 declared 266 -11 Bigha i.e. 16 -85 Hectare land in irrigated terms of the tenure holder Harpreet Singh as surplus. Aggrieved by the said orders, co -tenure holder Harpreet Singh filed appeal before the District Judge, Nainital. Ultimately, the said Ceiling appeal No. 314 of 1976 Sri Harpreet Singh Vs. State of U.P. was allowed by the Civil Judge, Nainital by his order dated 31 -8 -1977, the order dated 30 -4 -1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside on the ground that no notice under Rule 10(2) of the Rules framed under the Act which is mandatory in nature was given to co -tenure holder Sri Jagsaran Singh, and the case was remanded with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. In compliance of the appellate Court's order, demarcation of the land was got done on the spot and the case was decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 26 -11 -1982 afresh. By the impugned orders passed in separate cases, the land of petitioner Harpreet Singh measuring 266 Bigha, 12 Biswa i.e. 16 -85 Hectare had been declared surplus in terms of irrigated land, while land measuring 216 Bigha, 04 Biswa (13 -69 Hectare) of co -tenure holder Gurpreet Singh had been declared surplus. The Prescribed Authority declared 11 -24 hectare land in irrigated terms of Major Harpal Singh, land measuring 38 -40 Hectares of petitioner Jagsharan Singh and land measuring 22 -95 Hectares of petitioner Parv Sharan Singh by passing separate orders dated 26 -11 -1982 in separate cases registered against them.
(3.) AGGRIEVED , the petitioners Gurpreet Singh, Harpreet Singh, Prit Jeet Kaur, Jag Saran Singh and Parv Saran Singh filed separate appeals bearing Ceiling Appeals No. 134/82/9 of 85 -86, 135/82/10 of 85 -86, 137/82/13 of 85 -86, 136/82/14 of 85 -86 and 148/82/53 of 85 -86 respectively before the Commissioner Kumaun Division.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.