- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to is sue a writ, order or direction in the na ture of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6. 4. 1983 and 22. 2. 1980 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a cooperative so ciety registered under the provisions of the U. P Cooperative Societies Act since the year 1959 and is covered by Section 77 (1) (b) of the U. P Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and is exempt from the purview of the ceiling law. The petitioner society is in possession of plot no. 14/4, measur ing 97 Bighas in village Madhaiya Bakshi, Tahsil Bazpur, district Nainital, for the last more than twenty years and has become Bhumidhar of the same by adverse pos session. The original tenure holder of the aforesaid plot was Shri Amar Nath Jaitiey, respondent no. 4 (since deceased), but the petitioner society has acquired Bhumidhari rights over the same by adverse posses sion. Notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to said Amar Nath Jaitley-respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, by order dated 30-8-1978, cer tain land of respondent no. 4 including 50 Bighas, 13 Biswa of plot no. 14/4, of the said village was declared as surplus vacant land. An appeal was filed against the or der dated 30-8-1978 and the appellate, court by order dated 2-11-1979 declared land measuring 391 Bighas 11 Biswa in terms of the irrigated land including 50 Bighas, 13 Biswas unirrigated land of the aforesaid plot no. 14/4 as surplus land out of the holding of respondent no. 4. The petitioner filed objections be fore the Prescribed Authority-respondent no. 3 that the petitioner is in possession of 97 Bighas land of plot no. 14/4 for the last twenty years and had acquired Bhumidhari rights by adverse possession. As such the land of the aforesaid plot could not be treated as the holding of re spondent no. 4 and could not be declared as surplus land. A copy of the objections has been annexed as Annexure No. 1. It has been stated in paragraph no. 10 of the memo of writ petition that the petitioner in support of its contention filed a copy of Khasra of village Madhaiya Bakshi, Tahsil Bazpur, district Nainital for the year 1374 Fasli to 1384 Fasli. The petitioner also examined the President of the peti tioner society and the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Bandwara, while the State examined Sri Shri Ram Registrar Qanungo Bazpur. The Prescribed Authority by its or der dated 22-2-1980 dismissed the objec tion of the petitioner on the ground that no evidentiary value could be attached to the Khasra rerords as the same were not prepared in accordance with the provi sions of Land Record Manual. It was observed by the Prescribed Authority that in the Khasra of 1374 Fasli, the first en try of possession of the petitioner had not been recorded in accordance with provi sions of Land Records Manual and the entry did not disclose that Form PA-10 was ever issued. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Additional District Judge, Nainital. The appellate court partly al lowed the appeal to the extent of 2 Bighas, 3 Biswas vide judgment dated 17-11-1980. However, the appellate court did not accept the contention of the petitioner and observed that the Khasra records were not prepared in accordance with the provi sions of Land Records Manual.
(3.) THE appellate court observed that the Khasra entry of 1374 Fasli did not show the fact as to the issuance of Form PA-10 at the time of initial entry of the name of the petitioner in the Khasra record and as such no evidentiary value could be attached to the Khasra records as the same had not been prepared in ac cordance with paragraphs A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1898 of 1981 before the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 13-4-1982. The judgment passed in appeal was set aside and the case was remanded to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh. The High Court of Allahabad has observed that certain changes had been brought about by the Notification dated 3-7-1965 and it was no longer necessary to issue Form PA-10 instead an entry was required to be made in Form PA-24. The learned Appel late Court had been directed to consider whether the provisions of PA-24 had been complied with and requirement of the amended Paras A-80, A-81 and A-82 of the Land Records Manual had been made.;