Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AYUB KHAN versus ADDL. COMMISSIONER, VARANASI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ayub Khan v. Addl. Commissioner, Varanasi - WRIT - C No. 30320 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 12315 (19 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30320 of 1995

Ayub Khan

Vs.

Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi & Others

~~~~~

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19th December, 1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') pursuant to the notice issued under Section 29/30 of the Act. The quashing of the order dated 26th July, 1995 passed in appeal has also been sought.

The records of the writ petition indicate that earlier a notice dated 31st October, 1975 was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act mentioning therein that the petitioner had surplus land to the extent of 79-19-8 Biswas of land. The notice included the holdings of the petitioner's sons Abrar Khan and Ajad Ahmad. The petitioner as also his sons filed objections but the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 28th July, 1976 declared 34-8-14 Biswas of land as surplus. An appeal was filed under Section 13 of the Act which was allowed by the Appellate Authority by the order dated 20th September, 1977 holding that the holdings of the petitioner's sons could not have been included in the holdings of the petitioner and, therefore, the notice was discharged holding that the petitioner had no surplus land. Thereafter the consolidation proceedings started as a result of which the plots of the petitioner were exchanged. A notice under Section 29/30 of the Act was again issued to the petitioner mentioning therein that the petitioner had surplus land. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 19th December, 1992 declared 3-18-7 Biswas of land as surplus and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is these two orders that have been impugned in the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents as well as Sri S.K. Yadav for the private respondent nos. 4 to 11.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after passing of the earlier order in the appellate proceedings, the petitioner had not purchased any land and it was only because of the consolidation proceedings that there was subsequent changes in the holdings of the petitioner. He further submitted that the Prescribed Authority completely failed to consider whether the petitioner possessed irrigated or unirrigated land or whether the land was Abadi or Grove land. According to him, if the Prescribed Authority had actually adverted himself to these issues, the petitioner would not possess any surplus land. Learned counsel for the respondents have, however, supported the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.

I have carefully perused the order dated 19th December, 1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority. It merely records a finding that the petitioner possessed 32-15-11 Biswas of land which was in excess of of the ceiling limits and, therefore, it declared 3-18-7 Biswas of land as surplus. The Prescribed Authority had not considered the irrigated or the unirrigated character of the land which the petitioner got in exchange during the consolidation proceedings and nor had it taken into consideration whether the land was abadi or grove land of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority also had not adverted itself to these issues. In such circumstances the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

The orders dated 19th December, 1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 26th July, 1995 passed by the Appellate Authority are, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus area, if any, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Date: 19.7.2007

GS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.