High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Man Mohan Singh v. State Of U.P - WRIT - C No. 12958 of 1988  RD-AH 8670 (8 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988
Manmohan Singh vs. State of U.P.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Sections 29(b) and 30 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Under Sections 29(b) of the Act fresh proceedings after conclusion of the earlier proceedings may be initiated if some un-irrigated land held by tenure holder becomes irrigated as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work. The said provision will have to be read alongwith Section 4-A secondly according to which land is to be treated irrigated if irrigation facility became available by State Irrigation Work coming into operation subsequent to 8.6.1973.
In the earlier proceedings against the petitioner Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act through order dated 15.5.1976 held that petitioner did not possess any surplus land. The said order was passed in case no.1180 by Prescribed authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Baberu District Banda. Thereafter fresh notice was given under section 4-A/29/30 on 18.10.1983 and the matter was registered as case no.3/8/22. The matter was decided by the Additional Prescribed Authority on 12.3.1986. Prescribed authority perused khasras of 1389,1390 and 1391 fasli and held that certain plots were irrigated from canal. Through the said order 3.97 acres land of the petitioner was declared as surplus. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal no.101/11/123/21/18 of 1987-88. Appeal was dismissed on 8.4.1988 by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi division, Jhansi hence this writ petition.
There is absolutely no finding that the canal (known by the name of kane) came into existence after 8.6.1973. If the said canal was in existence before 18.6.1973 then nature of plots being irrigated or un-irrigated could be determined only as prevailing until the end of 1380 fasli i.e. 30.6.1973 by virtue of Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. In the earlier proceedings which were concluded after 30.6.1973 petitioner's land was held to be unirrigated. Thereafter it could not be held irrigated unless some State irrigation work came into existence after 8.6.1973. There being no such finding both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in fresh proceedings under Section 29 and 30 of the Act, cut off date should be treated to be the date of fresh notice and on the said date petitioner's son had became major hence relief in that regard should have been given to him. However, as I have held that fresh proceedings could not be initiated on the ground of un-irrigated land becoming irrigated hence there is no need to decide this question.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.