Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMBIKA PRASAD versus STATE OF UP

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ambika Prasad v. State Of Up - WRIT - C No. 30 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 5079 (22 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. 30 of 1987

Ambika Prasad and others Versus State of U.P and others .

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Prescribed authority through order dated 23.8.1976 declared an area of 28 Bigha, 17 Biswa, 17 Biswancy land belonging to petitioners' father as surplus land. Thereafter consolidation operation took place and as a result thereof there was reduction in some area hence objections under section 13-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 were filed. Objection were dismissed on 16.2.1982 against which appeal No. 160 of 1982 was filed which was allowed on 27.9.1982 and matter was remanded to the prescribed authority to decide the objections on merit. Thereafter prescribed authority, Meja Allahabad decided the objections through order dated 24.8.1983, copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition. The said order was passed in case No. 456/315 State Vs. Mahavir (Mahavir Prasad was father of the petitioners). Prescribed authority held that during consolidation operation there was reduction in the area to the extent of 18 Bigha 13 Biswa 11 Biswancy. Accordingly prescribed authority granted relief to the petitioners only to the extent of 18 Bigah 13 Biswa 11 Biswancy. After deducting the said area from the initial area declared as surplus land, through order dated 23.8.1976 an area of 10 Bigha 4 Biswa 17 Biswancy remained to be taken as surplus land. Against the said order of the prescribed authority petitioners did not file any appeal hence it became final against them. It appears that meanwhile surplus land had been allotted to respondents 3 to 6 Ram Rachcha, Avdhesh Prasad, Narain and Bachai. They filed appeal against order of prescribed authority dated 24.8.1983 being appeal No. 140 of 1986 Ram Rachcha Versus Ambika Prasad. State also filed cross objections. Additional Commissioner Allahabad decided the appeal on 24.9.1986. Cross objections of the State were dismissed however, appeal of the allottees was allowed. The said order of the appellate court is challenged through this writ petition.

The judgement of the appellate court can not be sustained. Appellate court mentioned that reduction in area in consolidation operations had already been taken into consideration in the earlier judgement dated 27.8.1976. This is not correct. Consolidation proceedings were finalised after the said date.

However, even after setting aside the judgement of the appellate court, the interest of allottees may be safeguarded. By virtue of prescribed authority's judgement dated 24.8.1983 which became final against the petitioners as they did not challenge it, petitioners are liable to surrender 10 Bigha 4 Biswa 17 Biswancy land as surplus land. If this is equal to the area which has been allotted to the allottees then the allotment shall stand. However, if more than 10 Bigha 4 Biswa 17 Biswancy land was allotted to the allottees then the land in excess of the said area shall proportionately be taken from every allottee and possession of the same land shall be delivered to the petitioners.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Waqar

22.3.2007


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.