STATE OF U.P. Vs. MATHURA SINGH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2002-9-285
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 30,2002

STATE OF U.P. Appellant
VERSUS
Mathura Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned standing counsel. Despite service of notice none appeared for respondent No.1.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20.3.1984 passed by respondent No. 2, the Appellate Authority.
(3.) It appears that a notice under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, for short, "the Act' was issued to the respondent No. 1, Mathura Singh, to show cause as to why an area measuring 4.99 acres out of his holding be not declared surplus. On receipt of the said notice, Mathura Singh filed an objection claiming that he was in possession of the land within his ceiling limit and no land on of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority by its judgment dated 31.5.1976 declared an area measuring 4.99 acres as surplus. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by Mathura Singh before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 11.11.1976. Mathura Singh thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 3697 of 1977 before this Court. The said writ petition was partly allowed and the case was remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh on the controversy regarding the share of the tenure 1 holders in the land in dispute. The Appellate Authority on remand recorded the finding that plot No. 608/1 was the grove land which was wrongly treated as irrigated land. He has also rightly decided the question of share of the tenure-holders in the land in dispute. It was also held that area 01 the holding of respondent No. 1) was reduced during the consolidation proceedings, consequently there remained no - land to be declared as surplus, by its judgment and order dated 20.3.1984; hence the present petition.;


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