- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. All these four writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 15. 3. 1990, passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, in ceiling appeal No. 3 of 1989-90, whereby judgment and order dated 31. 7. 1984, passed by Prescribed Authority/s. D. O. , Dehradun in ceiling case No. 10 of 1981-82, State v. Krishan Lal, is affirmed. The orders are passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 1 of 1961 ).
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Brief facts of the case are that Prescribed Authority, exercising its power under section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred as the Act), issued notices in respect of plot No. 148/2, situated in Village Raiwala, District Dehradun, in respect of combined area of 62. 76 acres of land as to why not 43. 59 acres be not declared surplus out of said allegedly irrigated land. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were not served with the notices, issued by the Prescribed Authority. However, they filed objections before the Prescribed Authority. The persons, who filed the objections are Ram Singh (Manager of Sri Vrindaban Gaushala Trust and petitioner of writ petition No. 744 (M/s) of 2001), claiming himself to be bhumidhar of 12 acres of land, Hira Kalyan Das (petitioner of writ petition No. 840 (M/s) of 2001), claiming himself to be bhumidhar of another 12 acres, of land, Gauri Shanker Mandir Trust (petitioner of writ petition No. 743 (M/s) of 2001), claiming it to be bhumidhar of 10. 76 acres'of land, Kundi Bai (petitioner of writ petition No. 839 (M/s) of 2001),; claiming herself to be bhumidhar of 12 acres of land, and one Narayan Singh, who claimed himself to be bhumidhar of remaining 4 acres of land in question. After Narain Singh died during the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, name of Ram Singh was substituted in his place. (Krishan Lal, who claimed bhumidhar of 12 acres of total land in question also, filed his objections ). The objections filed before the Prescribed Authority, by the petitioners are almost identical, which are reproduced below:- 1. That the objector is the bhumidhar of Khasra plot No. 148/2 in an area. . . acres situated in Village Raiwala, Pargana, Parwa Doon, District Dehradun. 2. That the notice under section 10 (2) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961, as amended up to date, published in newspaper, is against law, equity, justice and the facts. 3. That U. PV Act No. 1 of 1961 and the various amendments made there under from time to tune, contravene directive principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. That the explanation (2) of section 4 A, totally ignores the ownership of private source of irrigation, while in the private irrigation work ownership of source of irrigation is of greater importance in determining the fact whether the tenure holder has any right to use the source of irrigation as of right or not. If the tenure holder has no right to use the source of irrigation as of right such area cannot be treated as an irrigated area. In view of this determination of ceiling limit on the basis of irrigated and unrelated land, is ab-initio illegal and void. 5. The objector is tenure holder and Shri Krishan Lal Gularjani has no concern as neither he is bhumidhar nor sirdar. 4. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001 (M/s), copy of the\ aforesaid objections dated 28. 6. 1982, are annexed as Annexure-S. A. 9 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 4. 6. 2002), filed do behalf of the petitioner in which area claimed is 12 acres by Ram Singh on behalf of the petitioner concerned. In writ petition No. 840 of 2001 (M/s), copy of objections dated 28. 6. 1982, filed by Narain Singh, before the Prescribed Authority as Annexure-S. A. 6 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 4. 1. 1997), filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 4 acres of land. Similarly, objections dated 28. 6. 1982, filed before Prescribed Authority on behalf of Smt. Kundi Bai, is annexed as Annexure- S. A. 5 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 4. 6. 2002), filed on behalf of the petitioner of writ petition No. 839 of 2001 (M/s) in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 12 acres of land. And copy of objections dated 28. 6. 1982, filed before prescribed Authority on behalf of Gauri Shankar Mandir Trust, is annexed as S. A. 15 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 4. 6. 2002), filed on behalf of the petitioner of writ petition No. 743 of 2001 (M/s), in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 10. 76 acres of land.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority appears to have framed following two issues, as is apparent from the judgment and order dated 31. 7. 1984, passed by said authority in ceiling case No. 10 of 1981-82, on the basis of the above objections, filed by various parties:- 1. Is Krishan Lal in actual cultivation of 62. 76 acres of irrigated land? If so, its effect? 2. Are the parties entitled to any objections? If so, its effect? The oral and documentary evidence appears to have been adduced by the parties, and after hearing them, the Prescribed Authority held that it is Krishan Lal, who got purchased 62. 76 acres of land in the name of different persons (including petitioners), and in his own name, and as such, was found in actual cultivation of 62. 76 acres of land. The Prescribed Authority further held that the land in question was an irrigated land. It declared 43. 59 acres of land as surplus vide its order dated 31. 7. 1984. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioners (who are objectors before the Prescribed Authority) and Krishan Lal, preferred appeals under section 13 of U. P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961 ). The appeal filed by Krishan Lal appears to have been made leading ceiling appeal. Appeal filed by Hira Kalyan Dass was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal is Annexure-S. A. 11 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner of writ petition No. 840 of 2001 ). The appeal filed by Smt. Kundi Bai was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 154 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal) copy of memorandum of appeal as Annexure-S. A. 6 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 839 of 2001 ). Appeal filed by Gauri Shankar Mandir Trust, was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 150 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal is Annexure 2 to the writ petition No. 743 of 2001 ). Appeal filed by Ram Singh and Vrindawan Gaushala Trust was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 146 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal Annexure S. A. 10 to the supplementary affidavit, filed, on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 744 of 2001 ). All these appeals were filed before District Judge, Dehradun. Power to hear appeal was conferred vide U. P. Act No. 3 of 1986 on Commissioner instead of District Judge, as such, these appeals appear to have been transferred to the Court of Commissioner. And Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, decided all the appeals vide impugned order dated 15. 3. 1990 and dismissed all the appeals after hearing the parties. Hence these writ petitions are filed before Allahabad High Court by the petitioners (who were objectors before the Prescribed Authority) in the year 1990, challenging the order dated 15. 3. 1990, passed by the appellate authority and also order dated 31. 7. 1984, passed by the Prescribed Authority. All the four writ petitions are received by transfer to this Court under section 35 of U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for their disposal.;