High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Babu Singh v. Commissioner - WRIT - C No. 23769 of 1989  RD-AH 6419 (9 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23769 of 1989
Babu Singh and others.........................................................Petitioners.
Commissioner ,Kanpur Division,
Kanpur and others...........................................................Respondents
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
In proceedings initiated under Section 10 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act 1960, the prescribed authority passed an order dated 17.12.1984 declaring an area 3.57 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The original tenure holder, namely, the father of the petitioners died and, the petitioners, being the sons and legal heirs, filed an application dated 28.1.1885, under Section 13-A of the Act, for the rectification of the order, as it contained an error on the face of the record. The petitioner contended that the area of plot Nos.233, 20 and 19 of village Rampur Newada had wrongly been shown as 2.13 acres, 2.15 acres and 7.80 acres instead of 1.18 acres 1.14 acres and 4.60 acres respectively. The assertion made by the petitioner was supported by the relevant documents in Form No.CH-45 and certified copy of the Khatauni. Based on the said application, it transpires that the Tehsildar submitted a report dated 27.5.1984 holding that as per the revenue records and Form CH-45, the area of the land was shown in excess, in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act and, that the area of the land could be rectified under Section 13-A of the Act. Inspite of this report, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application, on the ground, that the order of the Prescribed Authority had become final and, that no rectification could be done in the said order. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was also rejected by the appellate authority. Consequently the writ petition.
The prescribed authority held that since the area of the land had been reduced in the consolidation proceedings and the plot numbers had also been changed, the same could not be rectified under Section 13-A of the Act. The same view was reiterated by the appellate authority.
In my view, the authorities have committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner. From a bare perusal of the record, the admitted postilion is, that the area of the plot had been reduced and the plot numbers had also been changed in consolidation proceedings prior to the issuance of the notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1960. The notice itself indicates the new numbers. The prescribed authority while declaring the irrigated land as surplus did not consider the impact of the reduction of the area under the consolidation operations. Consequently, there was an error apparent on the face on the record which was required to be considered under Section 13-A of the Act inasmuch as, the said application was moved within the stipulated period, as prescribed under that section.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the prescribed authority to pass a fresh order on the petitioner's application under Section 13-A of the Act after considering Form CH-46 and other revenue records within six months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.