Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.A. DAS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.A. Das v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 8370 of 1983 [2007] RD-AH 5999 (3 April 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. 8370 of 1983

Ram Asrey  (Since deceased and survived by Legal Representatives) 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. Earlier ceiling proceedings were decided by the prescribed authority against the petitioner on 3.2.1975 and certain land was declared as surplus land of the petitioner. Against the said order appeal was filed. Thereafter U.P Ordinance Act No. 11 of 1975 and thereafter U.P Act No. 20 of 1976 was passed. By virtue of section 31(1) of U.P Act No. 20 of 1976 ceiling proceedings pending either at the prescribed authority stage or appellate stage,  at that time were directed to abate. The precise words used are " shall be deemed to have abated" . The appeal of the petitioner also stood abated by virtue of the said provision.

Under the aforesaid Ordinance and Act, after abatement of pending proceedings, fresh proceedings were to be started. Accordingly fresh proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 1976 through notice under section 10(2) of the Act. In pursuance of the said notice petitioner filed objection and prescribed authority decided the matter on 30.7.1976 declaring 23.20 acres of petitioner's land as surplus land. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal. Appellate court recorded certain findings in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority to redetermine the question of nature of certain plots being irrigated or unirrigated. The appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 543 of 1976 and was allowed on 13.12.1978 by A.D.J Gorakhpur. After remand State filed an application before the prescribed authority seeking amendment in the notice. The amendment sought was that earlier some land had been declared as surplus through order of the prescribed authority dated 3.2.1975 hence matter in respect thereof became final and proceedings should be confined to other aspects of the matter. The said amendment was allowed on 4.12.1982 by the prescribed authority Ceiling Maharajganj in case No. 11/14/365 (or 11/12/369) State Vs. Ram Asrey. Against the said order petitioner filed Misc. Ceiling Appeal No. 456 of 1982. District Judge Gorakhpur dismissed the appeal on 22.3.1983 as not maintainable, hence this writ petition. In the writ petition appellate order as well as order of prescribed authority has been challenged.

In the amendment application, it was specifically stated that the case should be treated to be under section 13-A of Ceiling Act instead of section 10(2) of the Act and the land declared as surplus through earlier order dated 3.2.1975 must be deleted from the notice.

In my opinion, when earlier proceedings had abated by virtue of U.P Act No. 20 of 1976 and fresh proceedings had been initiated there was no question of treating the order dated 3.2.1975 as final. State itself had re-initiated the proceedings. Accordingly in my opinion amendment application was wrongly allowed (I am not deciding the question as to whether the notice can be amended or not).

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Order dated 4.12.1982 passed by the prescribed authority is set-aside (Appellate order dated 2.3.1983 is also set-aside). Prescribed authority is directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the remand order dated 13.12.1978 passed by appellate court in Misc. Appeal No. 543 of 1976.

Waqar

3.4.2007


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.