R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THIS petition demonstrates the incalculable harm and injustice to which a tenure -holder can be exposed if the Prescribed Authority on whom rests the primary responsibility of implementing the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act acts in complete disregard of the provisions contained in the Act.
(2.) IN response to a notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to Smt. Rama Devi, Respondent No. 4, who had transferred the land in dispute by two registered sale deeds dated 12 -5 -1959 and 28 -7 -1959, before the prescribed date (20 -8 -1959 before the Act was amended on 8 -6 -1973) filed an application on 4 -4 -1963 alleging that the land of district Bahraich shown in the notice as her tenancy was incorrect as she had sold it and was not its tenure -holder. In the end it was added that in case any land was found surplus it may be taken from the land situated in Bahraich. The objection was supported by an affidavit. On 22 -4 -1963 the prescribed authority passed the following order: In support of her objection she has filed only an affidavit. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. She has alleged sale of her land by sale deeds. But no such deeds have been produced nor any one has come forth in the witness box to state about the same. As such her objection remains unsubstantiated. She has given her choice for the land to be maintained by her. I accordingly determine and declare all the plots of village Saharia district Bahraich shown in column . . . as surplus. In pursuance of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority the surplus land was notified in the Official Gazette on 12 -10 -1963 and the Petitioner was dispossessed on 9 -6 -1969. The dispossession left the Petitioner surprised except that the land was declared surplus. The tale of running from 9 -6 -1969 culminating in filing an objection on 21 -6 -69 under Section 14(3) of the Act is described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition which reads as under: 5. That the Petitioners did not know of the aforesaid Gazette notification. The official Gazette does not come in the village. The Petitioner No. 1 is semi -literate while Petitioner No. 2 is illiterate except that he could write his name. Even the Tahsil Authorities did not know that the aforementioned land had been notified in the Official Gazette and came to know of it only when dakhal was effected. The Petitioners came to know of it for the first time from the Lekhpal on 21 -6 -1969 that the land had been taken away from the Petitioner in some ceiling case. 6. That the Petitioners thereupon went to their Tahsil Headquarters at Nanpara but were informed that they should go to the Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bahraich for the purpose of finding out how the alleged Dakhal Dehani had been taken. The Petitioners thereafter made inquiries at Bahraich but were informed that there was no ceiling case in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bahraich. Thereupon the lawyers advised the Petitioners to go to Gonda as Smt. Rama Devi was a resident of Gonda district to find out the case under the Act under which the land might have been declared to be the surplus land and to find out particulars of the case. At Gonda the Petitioners went to the Ceiling Officer where they were told that they should go to Balrampur to the Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer at Balrampur and should file their objections there. It was then that the Petitioners went to Balrampur and filed objections in the court of the Sub -Divisional Officer at Balrampur on 25 -6 -1969. The delay thus occasioned was solely due to the fact that the Petitioners did not come to know of the ceiling case in which the land was declared to be the surplus land and the Prescribed Authority by which it was declared to be the surplus land. Further the Petitioners were sent from one place to another before they discovered that the land was declared to be the surplus land of Smt. Rama Devi and by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Balrampur, distt. Gonda. The reply to these paragraphs is contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Naib Tahsildar, Gonda: 6. That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated therein. The Tahsil Authorities knew very well about the publication of surplus land of Respondent No. 4 in the Official Gazette. Moreover in view of Section 14(3) of the Act notification of surplus land under Section 14(1) amounts to constructive knowledge to all. The legal presumption would be that the Petitioner had full knowledge about the declaration of surplus land of Respondent No. 4, after its publication in the Official Gazette. 7. That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the circumstance narrated by the Petitioners in filing the delayed objection do not justify the condonation. It was rightly held by Civil Judge Bahraich in Misc. revenue appeal No. 5 of 1970 decided on 30 -8 -71, copy of which is attached with the writ petition. On the objection and reply filed by the Petitioner and the Collector the Prescribed Authority framed two issues; one, whether the Petitioner was a Bhumidhar and the other, whether the objection was barred by time. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the objection on the finding, 'It is rather difficult to believe that the objector may have remained in dark for all long years.' That the land in dispute lay in District Bahraich whereas it was declared surplus in District Gonda without any notice or intimation to the Petitioner was not disputed either before the Prescribed Authority or in the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority did not care to look into the reasons disclosed by the Petitioner else he would not have fell into the error. That the appellate court not only repeated the mistake but applied the principle of 'sufficient' cause so harshly that instead of subserving the cause of justice it throttled it. He held 'the disputed plots were taken by the Collector under Section 14(8) on 6 -6 -1969. Even if it be accepted for the sake of argument that the Appellant came to know of the declaration of suit plots as surplus land in ceiling from the Lekhpal on 21 -6 -1969 what prevented him from filing these objections on 22 -6 -1969 or any day before 25 -6 -69?' The expanses of the word 'sufficient cause' engulfs in its fold good or just, bonafide, honest individually and collectively. Any cause which prevents a person approaching the court within time is sufficient. In doing so it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.
(3.) THE mere fact that a person with exceptional speed or superhuman effort could have approached is no ground for refusing relief to another whose only fault may be lack of resources or poor advice etc. An illiterate litigant residing in a village unaware of the niceties of law needs a reasonable if not better treatment than a big business magnate or commercial head fighting his cause through law officer or the State Government or Union Government manning its litigation through an entire law department. If an explanation given by the law officer of a company or a Superintendent in the law department that the delay was caused due to correspondence and obtaining expert advice or instruction from the Government can be considered honest, just and bonafide, it is indeed callous to disregard the explanation of a poor, illiterate, ignorant villager whose total wealth is the land and to protect which he runs from pillar to post and is exploited at all hands whether it be the court staff or the lawyers' chamber.;