Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Maqboolhussain v. State Of Up & Others - WRIT - C No. 15190 of 1994 [2007] RD-AH 5610 (29 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).


(Court No. 28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15190 of 1994

Maqbool Hussain and other Versus State of U.P and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. After two or three remand orders by the appellate court, matter was decided by the prescribed authority Maharajganj, Gorakhpur on 21.2.1981 in case No. 168 State Vs. Sharafat Hussain, since deceased and survived by legal representatives who are petitioners. Copy of the said order is annexure 4 to the writ petition. Prescribed authority had framed several issues. Issue No. 12 was regarding benefit of reduction in the area of petitioners' agricultural land in consolidation proceedings. Petitioners have their agricultural land in two villages i.e Shitlapur and Naksha Vaksha. Prescribed authority on the basis of C.H Form No. 23 held that area of the petitioners' land in the two villages had been reduced to the extent of 5.3 acres equivalent to 3.35 acres in terms of irrigated land. Ultimately through the said order prescribed declared 3.18 acres of irrigated land equivalent to 4.17 acres of petitioners' particular land as surplus land. Against the order dated 21.2.1981, petitioners themselves filed Misc. Ceiling Appeal No. 181 of 1981. V Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 25.9.1982 mechanically allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority to consider the effect of reduction in area of petitioners agricultural land due to consolidation operations. Thereafter matter was registered as case no. 21 on the file of prescribed authority Maharajganj/ A.D.M (Supplies), Gorakhpur. When prescribed authority earlier decided the matter on 21.2.1981, consolidation proceedings had not become final however when after remand the matter was again decided on 29.1.1988 consolidation proceedings had become final and CH forms 41 and 45 had been prepared. The reduction in area of petitioners' agricultural land which was to the extent of 5.3 acres at one stage of the consolidation in effect remained only 0.75 acres at the conclusion of the consolidation operations. At the conclusion of the consolidation operations there was reduction to the extent of 2.18 acres in the petitioners' land in village Shitlapur however in village Naksha Vaksha there was addition in the area of the agricultural land held by the petitioner. In this manner the total reduction was only 0.75 acres. Prescribed authority therefore decided the matter on 29.1.1988 and declared 6.4 acres irrigated land of the petitioner as surplus land. Against the order dated 29.1.1988 appeal No. 6/108/201/ M of 1988 was filed which was dismissed by the Commissioner Gorakhpur division Gorakhpur on 13.12.1994, hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel has very forcefully argued that earlier prescribed authority granted benefit of 5.3 acres land to the petitioners due to reduction of their area in consolidation operations hence thereafter by subsequent order dated 29.1.1988 reduction in area could not be reduced to 0.75 acres. The argument is misconceived hence rejected. When prescribed authority passed the order on 21.2.1981, consolidation proceedings was in progress hence reduction up till that stage has been taken into consideration however as prescribed authority subsequently decided the matter on 29.1.1988 consolidation proceedings had been concluded and at the conclusion of consolidation proceedings, the net reduction in the area of petitioners agricultural land was only 0.75 acres. Accordingly prescribed authority granted the benefit to the petitioners only to that extent. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the approach of the prescribed authority.

Accordingly there is not merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

Dated:  29.3.2007



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


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 |

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