Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE versus I.P. SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State v. I.P. Singh - WRIT - C No. 567 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 6157 (4 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. 567 of 1985

State of U.P. Vs. Indra Pal Singh and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1984 passed by Additional District Judge, Rampur, in Ceiling Appeal No.32 of 1984, Hukum Singh and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others. The said appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 08.03.1984 passed by the Prescribed Authority/S.D.O. Milak, District Rampur, in Case No.1/1982-83 under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Before 24.01.1971, the names of the Respondents No.1 to 15 were recorded in the revenue records as occupants of the agricultural land admeasuring 58.04 acres situate in village Param on the basis of pattas granted to them. The Prescribed Authority held that apart from respondents No.1, 2 & 10, all other respondents were not actually in possession and these three persons were real tenure holders of the entire land and the other 12 allottees were only ostensible tenure holders. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority held that Indra Pal Singh, Respondent No.1 was tenure holder in real sense of 13/15 share of the entire land situate in village Param and Respondents No.2 and 10 Jogindra Singh and Balwant Singh were co-sharers to the extent of 1/15 each. Respondent No.1 was also holding exclusively 6.51 acres of land in village Zalafnagla out of which 0.25 acres land was found to be abadi.

The Appellate Court held that, firstly there was nothing on record to show that the other 12 persons were only ostensible tenure holders and real tenure holders were only Respondents No.1, 2 & 10. The Appellate Court further held that even if it was held that out of 15, only three persons were real tenure holder, still each person must be held to hold 1/3 of the entire agricultural land admeasuring 58 acres (i.e. about 19 acres each). Before the Appellate Court, it was conceded on behalf of the State that 6.26 acres of land situate in village Zalafnagla was unirrigated. (In revenue records it was shown as Banjar, Prescribed Authority had wrongly held the same to be irrigated)

If it is held that Indra Pal Singh, Jogindra Singh and Balwant Singh had 1/3 share in 58 acres of land, then none of them will be holding surplus land even if the finding of the Prescribed Authority in respect of 6.26 acres of land situate in village Zalafnagla to be irrigated is upheld. It was never disputed, at any stage, that the total land of 58 acres regarding which pattas were granted to the Respondents No.1 to 15 (situate in village Param) was unirrigated and 1 acre of this land was Abadi (Prescribed Authority also held thus). The pattas were granted to all the 15 persons before 24.01.1971.

The Appellate Court rightly held that Ist explanation of Section 5(1) of the Ceiling Act was not attracted. The said explanation is quoted below:-

"In determining the ceiling-area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account"

The entire 58 acres of land belongs to 15 persons. Even if it is assumed that it in real sense belongs to three persons only and remaining 12 persons are ostensible owners still each of the three persons will be entitled to 1/3, i.e. 19.3 acres of the said land, which was admittedly unirrigated.

Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. Writ petition is dismissed.

Date: 04.04.2007

NLY


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.