High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Maiya Deen v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 9494 of 1988  RD-AH 11036 (3 July 2007)
(Court No. 23)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9494 of 1988
Maiyadeen Versus State of U.P and another.
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the year 1983 for the first time notice under section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 was given to the petitioner proposing to declare 2.17 acres of irrigated land as surplus land. Petitioner filed objections. The case was registered as Misc. Case No. 79/22 of 1983-86, State Vs. Maiya Deen. Before the prescribed authority where the aforesaid case was registered petitioner filed objections and stated that he had 8 family members including himself, his wife and six issues. The names of all the children as well as name of the wife was given by the petitioner in para 6 of the objection dated 13.4.1983, copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Prescribed authority framed issues. Issue No.2 was as to whether objector had 8 members in his family, if so it is effect? Prescribed authority/ A.D.M (F& R) Hamirpur under issue No.2 held that on behalf of State, Shiv Charan Lal, the Lekhpal was examined who stated that the objector had six members in his family consisting of himself, his wife and three minor sons and one minor daughter. Prescribed authority held that in rebuttal of the said evidence no documentary evidence was filed by the objector petitioner like kutumb register etc. The prescribed authority accepted the version of the Lekhpal to be correct; Ultimately prescribed authority thorugh order dated 22.7.1987 held that even if petitioner had family of six persons still he did not posses any surplus land.
Against order dated 22.7.1987 through which prescribed authority decided the matter in favour of the petitioner tenure holder, State filed appeal No. 87/ 30/23 of 1986-87. Additional Commissioner, Jhansi division, Jhansi allowed the appeal on 14.4.1988. The said judgement and order of the appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition.
Appellate court held that tenure holder did not file copy of the kutumb register and statement of Pradhan etc. to prove that number of his family member was six or more. Appellate court further held that in the notice given to the petitioner, number of his family member was shown to be five. Appellate court in respect of statement of the Lekhpal mentioned that Lekhpal in his cross examination accepted that he did not know the names and ages of the minor sons of petitioner.
Lekhpal had appeared as witness of the State and the dispute was as to whether petitioner had five member family or eight member family. Lekhpal who was witness of the State himself admitted that number of family members of petitioner was six. Thereafter, there was no reason to hold that number of family member of petitioner was less than six.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgement and order of the appellate court is set-aside, and order of prescribed authority declaring that petitioner had got no surplus land is restored.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.