GURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 18.7.87 passed by respondent No. 3, order dated 17.8.87 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 15.5.87 passed by respondent No. 3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioner in the petition are that the petitioner was tenure -holder of plot No. 60/2 measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswas and 62 measuring 1 Bigha 3 biswas situate in village Pilsa Safipur. It is stated that respondent No. 3 by order dated 18.7.87 held that plot No. 261/2 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas and plot No. 264 measuring 8 biswas which were earlier included in the ceiling area of the petitioner exclusively belong to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 which they have purchased from the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 18.3.68 for adequate consideration. Their names have been mutated in 1379 Fasli. Therefore, these plots belong to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. It is stated that this order has become final as no appeal or writ was filed by the State. Therefore, the area of these plots should not have been taken into consideration while determining the ceiling area of the petitioner. It is stated that as respondent No. 3 treated these plots to be plot of the petitioner, he filed application under Section 13A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act which was dismissed by respondent No. 3 on 15.5.87 holding that there was no clerical or arithmetical error in the earlier order dated 18.7.87. It is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 has held that Chhidda Singh has not been made party in the proceeding. The contention of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given, to the petitioner to implead Chhidda Singh, Amar Singh and Jai Singh as party who were held to be tenure -holder by the Prescribed Authority himself, therefore, the judgment is vitiated in law.

(2.) COUNTER -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter -affidavit it is stated that vide order dated 18.7.86 plot Nos. 60/2 and 61 was declared as surplus land with Gurjeet Singh son of Nau Nihal Singh. It is stated that respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6 were held to be tenure -holder of plot Nos. 261/2 and 264. It is further stated that as the petitioner was original tenure -holder whose land was declared surplus and appeal filed by him was allowed, the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority held 12 bighas 17 biswas and 10 biswansi as surplus land on 14.6.79 and the possession was taken by the Tahsildar. Again an appeal was filed. Matter was remanded on 30.9.80 thereafter, 4.18 -1/3 area declared as surplus on 28.2.81 and the possession was taken over the plot Nos. 261 and 264 on 9.4.81. A writ was filed which was dismissed on 9.1.81. Therefore, there was no error in the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18.7.86. As such the application under Section 13A was not maintainable and there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the respondents.

(3.) A bare perusal of the judgments of the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority would show that they have not considered the effect of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority by which he held that certain area belonged to the purchasers, therefore, the application under Section 13A was maintainable. Accordingly. I am of the view that the judgment and orders passed by the respondents should be quashed and matter should be sent to the Prescribed Authority again to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and pass a fresh order keeping in view the effect of the findings of the Prescribed Authority regarding ownership of Chhidda Singh and others and its effect on the ceiling area of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.7.87 passed by respondent No. 3, the order dated 17.8.87 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 15.5.97 of respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed. The matter is being sent to the prescribed authority for deciding it afresh keeping in view the observations made in the body of this judgment.