Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MATA RAM versus STATE OF UP

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mata Ram v. State Of Up - WRIT - C No. 8261 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 4163 (12 March 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. 8261 of 1987

Mata Ram and another Versus State of U.P and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Against late Sri Sukhan father of petitioners proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 were initiated. Through order dated 31.5.1974, matter was decided by the prescribed authority in favour of Sukhan. The main plea of Sukhan was that his two sons i.e. present petitioners were born before 1.7.1952, the date of vesting under U.P.Z.A.L.R Act hence they had birth right in the land of Sukhan which was his Sir and Khudkasht before the date of vesting. In this regard a suit for declaration and partition was also filed between the father and sons, which was decreed on 31.8.1970. Against order dated 31.5.1974 State filed appeal. Appellate court finally set-aside the findings of prescribed authority on two points i.e. share of the sons and particular plot of land being grove. Appellate court remanded the matter to the prescribed authority only to consider the nature of certain plots and to decide as to whether the said plots were irrigated or unirrigated. Appellate court passed the said order on 3.8.1976. Against the said order writ petition was filed in this court being writ petition No. 4976 of 1976. The said writ petition was allowed on 4.9.1978 and prescribed authority was directed to decide all the three questions.

Strangely enough meanwhile on 5.10.1976 second notice was issued by the prescribed authority under section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. (In the writ petition of 1976 an interim order had been passed on 17.12.1976 staying operation of impugned appellate order). In pursuance of second notice dated 5.10.1976 Sukhan filed objection stating therein that writ petition was pending in the High Court. Thereafter he did not appear before the prescribed authority hence prescribed authority on 31.12.1976 passed order against him declaring 19 bigha, 13 biswa and 9 biswancy land as surplus land. Sukhan challenged the said order before the prescribed authority itself by filing objections under section 13-A of the Act, which were rejected. Appeal against the said order was also rejected. Thereafter petitioner filed appeal against order dated 31.12.1976 along with delay condonation application. Delay condonation application was rejected, order was upheld by the High Court however, Supreme Court set-aside the said order and condoned the delay in filing appeal and directed the appellate court to decide appeal (No. 40 of 1985-86) on merit. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 31.12.1986. This writ petition is directed against order passed by the prescribed authority dated 31.12.1976 and order passed by the Additional Commissioner / Appellate authority dated 31.12.1986.

The effect of order of the High Court dated 4.9.1978 was not considered by any of the two authorities below.

In my opinion when matter was pending in this High Court in the form of writ petition there was absolutely no occasion to issue second notice. Even apart from pendency of writ petition there was no occasion to issue second notice. Second notice might be issued only if there was some change in the land held by the tenure holder. The learned Commissioner held that by virtue of section 38-B of Ceiling Act the decree dated 31.8.1970 was not binding upon Ceiling authorities. I am not saying anything in respect of this and other finding as in my opinion the matter is first to be decided by the prescribed authority after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 31.12.1976 and 31.12.1986 are set-aside. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the matter afresh in pursuance of the remand order passed by this court dated 4.9.1978. Petitioners are directed to appear before the prescribed authority concerned along with certified copy of this judgment on 16.4.2007.

Waqar

12.3.2007


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.