YASHPAL Vs. STATE OF U P THROUGH COLLECTOR HARIDWAR
LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-82
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 06,2012

YASHPAL Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P Through Collector Haridwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. - (1.) THE present petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, Meerut under the provision of Section 27(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (from hereinafter referred to as Act). The order was passed on an application moved by one Raham Elaahi on 23.5.1989 stating that the land which has been allotted to the petitioners (i.e. petitioners before this Court) after declaration of surplus land of one Sri Om Prakash was not liable to be given to them, as the total land of Sri Om Prakash, which was declared surplus in the village Bijopura, Hardwar was 28 Bigha 17 Biswa out of which he had purchased about 6 Bigha 10 Biswa in the year 1970 i.e. much prior to the date of notification. Hence, 6 Bigha 10 Biswa has to be deducted from the surplus land and secondly the land could not have been given to the petitioners as the possession of the said land was not given to the State either by Om Prakash or his heirs nor was the exact location of the surplus land was determined. Moreover, the land which was declared as surplus vide order dated 26.2.1976, the concerned authority had also demarcated the cite which has to be deducted as surplus and of which land possession has to be taken. On the other hand, the possession, which has been taken from the landless agriculturists i.e. present petitioners, is not the land, which was declared as surplus. Another objection raised by respondent no. 6 is that the petitioners do not belong to the village where the land has been declared as surplus and therefore they are not eligible for allotment of the said land as land less agriculturists. Consequently, an order dated 30.11.1992 was passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) by setting aside the order dated 19.11.1988 by which the surplus land was allotted to the petitioners. Aggrieved the present petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 30.11.1992.
(2.) THE matter is extremely old, which pertains to the year 1993. By counsel of the parties it is being finally heard today.
(3.) HEARD Mr. C. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Menka Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. M. C. Bansal, Advocate for respondent no. 6. It is undisputed fact that 28 Bigha 17 Biswa land of one Sri Om Prakash was declared as surplus vide order dated 26.2.1976. Even deducting the land which was given to Sri Raham Elahi by sale deed in the year 1970, there is still about 21 Bigha 10 Biswa 14 Dhoor of land which is surplus. It is again cannot be disputed that the land which is declared as surplus must be distributed to the landless agriculturists, in accordance with law. The petitioners before this Court are the landless agriculturists, which has not been denied by any of the respondents. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that to the provision of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") in which a list of eligible persons have also been given in order to give preference. Section 198 of the Act reads as follows: "198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under sections 195 and 197. - (1) In the admission of persons to land as [bhumidhar with non -transferable rights] or asami under section 195 or section 197 (hereinafter in this section referred to as allotment of land), the Land Management Committee shall, subject to any order made by a court under section 178, observe the following order of preference: [(a) landless widow, sons, unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle of a person who has lost his life by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (c) a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle and belonging to [a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class or a person of general category living below poverty line]; (cc) [***] (d) any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle; (e) a bhumidhar [***] or asami residing in the circle and holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres); (f) a landless person residing in the circle who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in the Armed Forces of the Union ; (g) a landless freedom -fighter residing in the circle who has not been granted political; (h) any other landless agricultural labourer belonging to [a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class or a person of general category living below poverty line] not residing in the circle, but residing in the Nyaya Panchyat Circle referred to in section 42 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.]";


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