High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P. v. D.J. Muzaffarnagar And Ors. - WRIT - C No. 5981 of 1984  RD-AH 6156 (4 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5981 of 1984
The State of U.P. Through Collector, Muzaffar Nagar vs. The District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and others
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Fresh proceedings under section 29/30 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 were initiated against original respondent no.3 - Shri Budah Sagar (Case no. 9 of 1981). Shri Budah Sagar died during pendency of writ petition and substitution application to bring on record his legal representatives has been allowed today. Fresh proceedings had been initiated on the ground that wife of original respondent no.3 had inherited some agricultural land from his father after the death of her father in the year 1980. The name of father of wife of original respondent no.3 was Anoop Singh. Anoop Singh had a brother by the name of Jagan Singh. The two brothers divided their joint agricultural property through family partititon. Jagan Singh predeceased Anoop Singh. After the death of Anoop Singh partition suit was filed in between sons of Jagan Singh and daughter of Anoop Singh i.e. Wife of respondent no.3. Suit was filed on 20.7.1981 and decreed on 1.7.1982. In the family settlement between the two brothers and through partition decree between the cousins (i.e. Sons of Jagan Singh and daughter of Anoop Singh) grove came in the share of daughter of Anoop Singh i.e. wife of respondent no.3 and unirrigated agricultural land came in the share of sons of Jagan Singh.
Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Tehsil Jansath District Muzaffarnagar decided the case (no.9 of 1981) on 4.8.1983. Prescribed authority giving due waitage to the family settlement and partition decree and taking the said partition and decree as correct held that respondent no.3 possessed 3 bighas 13 biswas and 12 biswansies land as surplus land in terms of irrigated land. Respondent no.3 felt satisfied by the said order did not file any appeal. However, State filed ceiling appeal no.12 of 1983 which was dismissed on 6.1.1984 by District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar hence this writ petition.
The contention of the State was that family settlement and partition decree should be ignored. Appellate court did not agree with the contention of the State. Appellate court gave a very sound reason that as wife of respondent no.3 was residing in another district by virtue of her marriage to respondent no.3 hence it was quite natural for her to take the grove. Managing a grove does not require constant presence.
I fully agree with the reasoning given by the appellate court. Learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner - State has not been able to point out any such error in the impugned orders which may warrant interference in the said orders.
Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.