High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raj Narain & Others v. The Addl. Cimmissioner (Second) & Others - WRIT - C No. 20945 of 1996  RD-AH 9929 (23 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21518 of 1996
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20945 of 1996
Raj Narain and others Versus Additional Commissioner (II) Jhansi division Jhansi and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Against Permanand tenure-holder notice under section 29/30 of U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued in 1992. It appears that prior to that no ceiling proceedings were initiated against him. Matter was initially decided exparte against Permanand. Thereafter, he filed restoration application and earlier order was set-aside. Thereafter, matter was decided on merit by the prescribed authority (Ceiling)/ A.D.M (Finance & Revenue), Hamirpur through order dated 11.12.1995.
Permanand through his attorney had sold substantial portion of his land to different persons including petitioners Raj Narain, Naval Kishore, Ashok Kumar and Subhash Kumar. The purchasers including the petitioners had filed applications before prescribed authority that they had purchased the land. Petitioners purchased the land in 1985. The judgment dated 11.12.1995 was given in case No. 29/1/12 of 1992 -95 State Vs. Permanand in first writ petition and in case No. 30/13 of 1992-95 State Vs. Balmukund in the second writ petition. In respect of sale deeds prescribed authority held that they were executed after 24.1.1971, hence, they were liable to be ignored.
To justify fresh proceedings under section 29-30 of the Ceiling Act, prescribed authority held that land of Permanand was irrigated from lift canal of State, hence, the land would be deemed to be irrigated. Section 29(b) is quoted below:
"Where after the date of enforcement of U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work the ceiling area shall be liable to be redetermined."
The aforesaid Amendment Act was enforced on 5/8 June 1973. Accordingly proceedings under section 29 of the Act may be initiated only if some State irrigation work comes into existence after 8.6.1973. There was absolutely no finding in the order that the canal which had been mentioned in the impugned order came into existence after 8.6.1973.
After passing of the order dated 11.12.1995 Permanand gave choice of the land, which he had already sold, for being taken as surplus land and the same was accepted by the prescribed authority on 15.1.1996. Order of prescribed authority dated 11.12.1995 and 15.1.1996 were subjected to appeal being Appeal No. 23/21 of 1995-96 in the first writ petition and Appeal No. 22/22 of 1995-96 in the second writ petition. Additional Commissioner (II) Jhansi Division Jhansi, dismissed the appeals on 17.6.1996, hence, these writ petitions.
As provisions of section 29 of the Act were not attracted, hence, both the judgments are liable to be set-aside. In the absence of finding that State irrigation work came into existence after 8.6.1973 and that a particular land which was till then unirrigated became irrigated, fresh ceiling proceedings are not permissible.
Accordingly writ petitions are allowed. All the impugned orders are set-aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.