Anjani Kumar - (1.) -The petitioner-tenure holder was served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (which shall here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') by the prescribed authority to show cause as to why an area of 53 Bighas and 12 Biswas land be not declared surplus. The petitioner filed his objection to the aforesaid notice. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 31st August, 1976, rejected the petitioner's objection and declared an area of 53 Bighas and 12 Biswas land belonging to the petitioner as surplus land under 'the Act'. Aggrieved by the order dated 31st August, 1976, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 224 of 1977 before the appellate authority/District Judge. The appellate authority vide its order dated 3rd August, 1977 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in part declaring an area of 44 Bighas, 16 Biswas and 15 Dhoors of land as surplus land. Before the aforesaid land declared as surplus by the appellate authority could be taken in possession by the State Government, the village concerned has been notified under the provisions of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. During the consolidation operation, the total area of the petitioner's land has been reduced. In the meantime, the petitioner received notice dated 7th July, 1981 proposing to declare an area of 34 Bighas, 1 Biswa and 12 Dhoors as surplus land. The petitioner thereafter filed his objection to the aforesaid notice. During the pendency of the proceeding pursuant to the notice dated 7th July, 1981, another notice dated 18th January, 1982 under Section 10 (2) of 'the Act' was served upon the petitioner directing him to comply with the earlier order passed by the appellate authority dated 3rd August, 1977. The petitioner filed objection against the second notice dated 18th January, 1982. The prescribed authority before whom the matter of notices were pending ultimately consolidated both the cases and passed an order rejecting the petitioner's objection vide order dated 15th April, 1983 declaring an area of 44 Bighas, 16 Biswas and 15 Dhoors of land as surplus from the plot No. 683 and others and discharged the notice dated 7th July, 1981. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15th April, 1983, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 459 of 1983 before the appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. The appellate authority vide order dated 12th August, 1987 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review application before the Commissioner against the order dated 12th August, 1987, which has been rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 16th May, 1988. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challening the orders dated 15th April, 1983, passed by the prescribed authority, 12th August, 1987 passed by the Additional Commissioner and 16th May, 1988 passed by the Commissioner, respectively.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued before this Court that in view of the settled legal position, the area of land which has been reduced pursuant to the consolidation operation ought to have been reduced from the area declared as surplus by the prescribed authority and the view taken to the contrary by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and similar is the position with regard to the order on the review application filed by the petitioner and rejected by the appellate authority. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision in Jhandoo v. State of U. P. and others, 1977 AWC 318, wherein this Court has held : "What was required to be determined by the prescribed authority was that the petitioner did not hold any land in excess of ceiling area after 8.6.1973. In case as a result of the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act the area of the petitioner was reduced to such an extent that no surplus land remained with the petitioner, the prescribed authority committed an error in declaring the surplus land taking the position as it stood on 8.6.1973." Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision Changu Ram v. 3rd Additional District Judge and others, 1982 ALJ 41, wherein learned single Judge of this Court relying upon the case Satyapal Singh v. State of U. P., 1979 ALJ 1259, has held : "The authority should have accepted the case of the petitioner even though such reduction in area was brought about after 8.6.1973 (the cut off date). The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Consolidation Authorities gave directions in respect of certain plots which were wrongly recorded and on similar other grounds the area of the tenure-holders stood reduced during consolidation proceedings. This point is common to both the petitions. It has seemed to me that the appellate court did not have the benefit of the guidance which was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Satyapal Singh's case (supra). It may again be emphasised that the reduction of area of the tenure-holder in consolidation proceedings may come about due to various reasons. One reason may be that on an adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities between rival claimants, a tenure-holder loses some land in the consolidation proceedings and thus there is a reduction of his area in the consolidation proceedings compared to what he held before the consolidation proceedings. The ceiling law does not grant any benefit to such a tenure-holder on account of such reduction during the consolidation proceedings brought about on account of the adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities, if such adjudication has taken place after 8.6.1973 (the cut off date). However, very often reduction in the area of land during consolidation proceedings is brought about on account of the allotment of different plots with different valuations or on account of certain land of the tenure-holder being taken for public purposes etc. during the consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench in Satya Pal Singh's case laid down that a tenure-holder should be entitled to the benefit of the reduction in the area during consolidation proceedings even if such reduction has taken place after 8.6.1973 (the cut off date),"
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court and in view of the fact that the petitioner's area of land has been reduced during the consolidation operation and the petitioner's land being taken away for public purposes, the view taken by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, in my opinion, suffers from the manifest error of law. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 15th April, 1983 passed by the prescribed authority, 12th August, 1987 and 16th May, 1988 passed by the appellate authority, Annexures-II', 'IV' and 'VI' to the writ petition, are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for decision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of three months' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it. Needless to say that the petitioner-tenure holder is entitled to get benefit of the area of land by reducing the area which has been curtailed during consolidation operation by allotting the petitioner's land for public purposes.;