Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.PARVATI versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Parvati v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 15422 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 12877 (25 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.35

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15422 of1995

Smt. Parvati

Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Others

~~~~~~

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25th April, 1994 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'). The petition also seeks to challenge the order dated 9th May, 1995 by which the appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed.

The records of the writ petition indicate that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to Ram Adhar Singh and the Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 20th October, 1976 declared an area of 22.7 Acres of land in irrigated terms (equivalent to 58.86 Acres of unirrigated land) as surplus. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid order by Ram Adhar Singh which was partly allowed by the order dated 10th July, 1978 and the surplus area was reduced to 17.81 Acres in terms of the irrigated land (equivalent to 44.52 Acres of unirrigated land). The Appellate Authority also directed that the Prescribed Authority should take an option from the tenure-holder and thereafter declare the surplus land. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the  Appellate Authority, the Prescribed Authority passed a detailed order on 4th December, 1979 after taking option from Ram Adhar Singh. Lands of village Sukaura, Pahara and Kahara were involved and after taking the option from the tenure-holder, the Prescribed Authority declared an area of 26.80 Acres as surplus land in village Sukaura, 15.48 Acres of land in village Pahara and 2.24 Acres of land in village Kahara. It appears that the order dated 4th December, 1979 was not implemented at that time and the tenure-holder/his heirs executed certain sale deeds in respect of certain area. It also needs to be mentioned that consolidation proceedings had started in the aforesaid villages and on the basis of the report submitted by the Consolidation Officer, surplus area of the holdings of the tenure holder in the aforesaid three villages was declared by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 25th April, 1994. In respect of village Sukaura 16.99 Acres of land situate in Gata No.220, 422, 126, 118 and 119 was declared as surplus while in respect of village Pahara 3.17 Acres of land in Gata No. 410 and 5.98 Acres of land in Gata No.533 were declared as surplus. In respect of village Kahara 2.24 Acres of land situate in Gata No.1330 was declared as surplus. Thus, the total area of land declared surplus in the aforesaid three villages on the basis of the consolidation proceedings was 28.38 Acres.

It also needs to be mentioned that after the death of Ram Adhar Singh, the name of Smt. Parvati Devi wife of Natthu Singh was entered on the basis of a will said to have been executed by Ram Adhar Singh. The said Smt. Parvati Devi also executed certain sale deeds in respect of land situate in village Sukaura in favour of Gajju, Chiranji Lal, Prem Lal and Prabhakar. Smt. Parvati, Chiranji Lal, Prem Lal, Prabhakar and Gajju filed objections before the Prescribed Authority which were rejected as is clear from the order dated 25th April, 1994. However, against the said order only Parvati Devi filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act and the others did not file any appeal.  The Appellate Authority noticed that the order dated 4th December, 1979 had been passed by the Prescribed Authority on the basis of the option given by the tenure-holder and that any sale deed executed after the said date by the tenure-holder or the heirs in respect of the land declared surplus was void. It, therefore, dismissed the Appeal filed by Smt. Parvati Devi.

In the present petition the petitioner has stated in Paragraph ''2' of the writ petition that some land of the petitioner was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 4th December, 1979. This is an incorrect statement inasmuch as notice under Section 10(2) of the Act had been issued to Ram Adhar Singh and the Prescribed Authority had declared  an area of 22.7 Acres of land in irrigated terms (equivalent to 58.86 Acres of unirrigated land) as surplus. In the Appeal filed by Ram Adhar Singh this area was reduced to 17.81 Acres in terms of the irrigated land (equivalent to 44.52 Acres of unirrigated land). The Appellate Authority also directed that the Prescribed Authority should take an option from the tenure-holder and thereafter declare the surplus land. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the  Appellate Authority, the Prescribed Authority passed a detailed order on 4th December, 1979 after taking option from Ram Adhar Singh.

In Paragraph ''3' of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that choice was taken from the petitioner. This is also an incorrect statement as the choice was taken from Ram Adhar Singh.

The petitioner had executed sale deeds after the order dated 4th December, 1979 had been passed as an heir of Ram Adhar Singh and objections had been raised by the persons in whose favour the land had been sold. These persons, however, did not file any appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be said to be aggrieved as inasmuch as grievance was raised by the objectors in whose favour the land had been sold but they did not file any appeal and nor they have filed any petition. The present petition at the behest of the petitioner is clearly, therefore, not maintainable.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 25.7.2007

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.