RAM SAHODAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-79
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 18,2009

RAM SAHODAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The proceedings arise out of orders passed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 1992 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the State, questioning the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.10.1991, has been allowed and the land to the tune of 9.84 acres in the irrigated sense has been declared as surplus in the hands of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is erroneous, inasmuch as, the order dated 25th May, 1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby only an area of 1.24 acres has been declared surplus, had become final and there was no further land available so as to reopen the entire proceedings on the principles of Section 38-B of the Act, 1960 . Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings were not ex-parte and had been decided upon an order of remand having been passed by the then Appellate Authority on two specific issues. It is urged that the impugned order incorrectly without appreciating the facts on record on the issue of ex-parte proceedings has caused prejudice. The Appellate Authority has proceeded to reopen the entire case, which was impermissible in law. He contends that the declaration of the land as surplus in the hands of the petitioner has attained finality and, therefore, the authority could not have exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring an order which had already been set aside and had been finalized by the Prescribed Authority on 25.05.1978.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that, as a matter of fact, the order dated 25.05.1978 was exparte and had proceeded on an incorrect assumption and, therefore, the Additional Commissioner was justified in reopening and rehearing the entire matter and restore the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority passed in the year 1976.;


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