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


Kishan Singh v. Addl.Comissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 17750 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 7770 (26 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).


    COURT NO.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17750 of 1986

Kishan Singh..........................................................................Petitioner


Additional Commissioner Agra Division,

Agra and and others........................................................Respondents.


Hon.Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who has argued the matter without his file.

The proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated in which the petitioner's father filed his objection which was considered and thereafter the prescribed authority passed an order dated 1.2.1975 holding that 1.69 acres of land was surplus. The prescribed authority also held that  1.33 acres of land which was marked as Nala in Plot No.234 and .36 decimal from the adjoining land would be acquired. The petitioner's father accepted this order and the order of the prescribed authority became final. It is alleged by the petitioner (who is the son of the original tenure holder) that the surplus land was taken over by the State and that mutation was also made in their names and that a portion of  1.36 decimal had also been allotted to one landless labour Natthi s/o Phaudi and that his name was also entered in the revenue records.

It transpires that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was subsequently initiated and plot No.234 was also acquired. It has come on record that the petitioner received compensation of the land which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. When the ceiling authorities came to know about the compensation being received by the petitioner, they issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause under what basis he had received the compensation  and directed the petitioner to refund money to the Land Acquisition Officer since the said land had already been acquired in the ceiling proceedings by the ceiling authorities. It is alleged that the petitioner approached the Land Acquition Officer for refunding the amount. It is contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer  refused to take the amount from the petitioner on the ground that there was no such provision under the Act.

The prescribed authority, accordingly,  issued  an order dated 3.4.1986 directing its office to take further possession of 1.33 acres of land from the remaining land of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Commissioner by an order dated 11.9.1986. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition.

In my opinion, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The mere fact that the petitioner had taken compensation of the land from the Special Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act will not justify the prescribed authority under the Ceiling Act to take possession of further land without initiating any proceedings under  the Act. In the present case, the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act had already been culminated and certain land had already been taken by the ceiling authority. The mere fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the said portion of the land in the land acquisition proceedings subsequently will not make any difference and would not justify the authorities under the Ceiling Act to take further possession from the land of the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner had taken compensation under the Land Acquisition Act illegally would entail penal consequences against the petitioner to be taken appropriately by the relevant authority but would not entitle the ceiling authorities to take further possession  of the land.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.




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.