- (1.) THIS writ petition challenges the determination of the ceiling area of the writ petitioner under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The writ petitioner filed a return under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act on 30.11.1976. A notice was issued to him under Sec. 8 of the Act on 12.3.1997. In the notice, certain lands included in village Pandrapala not included in the return filed by him were also proposed to be included while making the final determination. The petitioner filed objections. He contended that the land was agricultural land and was situate in a village that did not come within the purview of Schedule 1 to the Act. As regards the extent in Bhuli, sought to be included, it was contended that the land was within the ceiling limit. The authority held that the land in mouza Bhuli was liable to be included as it was part of an urban agglomeration. It was also held that the lands in Pandrapala were also liable to be included. The petitioner was found liable to surrender 2.25 acres of land. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec.33 of the Act before the Commissioner, the appellate authority, under the Act. By order dated 11.12.1989, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenged that order in CWJC No. 265 of 1991 (R). By judgment dated 26.12.1991, this Court allowed the said writ petition to the extent of directing the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal and to dispose off the appeal afresh on merits. Thereafter, by order dated 13.8.1991, the appellate authority again dismissed the appeal. The petitioner had challenged that appellate order in this writ petition.
(2.) IT is seen that the petitioner had not disputed that he held and passed an extent of 0.25 acres in Bhuli and had contended that he held only an extent of 1.62 acres in Pandrapala totaling 1.87 acres. But the authority found that the petitioner was holding an extent of 3.04 acres and not 1.87 as claimed. The claim that the lands were agricultural lands was also rejected. It was found that the petitioner was entitled to retain 79 decimals of land towards his ceiling area, and he was liable to surrender an extent of 2.25 acres. The case of the petitioner is that he possessed only 1.87 acres of land and the rest of the lands did not belong to him. When that is the case of the person who filed the return, the burden is on the State of establish, if it wants to add any more extent to his account, to show that the extent sought to be added was also owned and possessed by the assessee. The report of the concerned officer relied on by the State does not give any details of even the deed of assignment by which the petitioner allegedly acquired the lands which he had not included in his return. It must be noted that the petitioner 'scase was that the extent sought to be added, belonged to his father. It would have been very easy for the authority concerned to verify with reference to the title deed whether this was true. He could have directed the petitioner to produce the title deed. No attempt was made to do this or to trance out the details of the purchase. Obviously, the authorities under the Act were not performing their duties properly. One possible explanation is that they were trying to help persons who had filed returns and who were trying to defeat the provisions of the Act. Suffice it to say that we are inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that it was not proved that he was holding any land in excess of what he had shown in his return, and that the addition to it was not justified.
(3.) BUT we are not inclined to accept the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the lands are agricultural lands or that they are not liable to be included in calculating his ceiling area under the Act. That the lands are not agricultural lands is the finding of fact rendered by both the authorities under the Act and it does not call for any interference in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The finding that the lands in Bhuli were liable to be included is not shown to be erroneous. Anyway, no adequate ground is made out for interference. This would mean that the petitioner is holding an extent of 1.87 acres of land. He has been found entitled to retain an extent of 79 decimals towards his ceiling area. That would mean that he has an obligation to surrender an extent of 1.08 acres as being in excess of the ceiling area. It is so held.;