Ram Dass v. Prescribed Authority — 1978 DIGILAW 1069 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : K.P SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Jalaun, Orai, dated 5-1-1977 in Ceiling Appeal No. 130 of 1976-Ram Das v. State of U.P. 2. The Prescribed Authority through its judgment dated 21-5-76, has declared 0.87 acre area of the Petitioner as surplus. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended before me that the Petitioner was adopted long ago in the year 1957 and he had no concern with the property of his natural father but the Petitioner has been shown a share in the property of his natural father and thus the ceiling authorities have patently erred in determining the ceiling limit of the Petitioner and in declaring surplus area. 3. Secondly, he has contended that the ceiling authorities have patently erred in treating plots Nos. 13, 461, 462 and 632 as irrigated area without indicating as to whether the essential ingredients mentioned in Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were satisfied. 4. Thirdly, he has contended that the appellate authority is under wrong notion that the Petitioner had no locus standi to file the appeal. He has very much emphasized that the appellate authority is under wrong notion that the land declared as surplus by the Prescribed authority belonged to the natural father of the Petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel for the State has tried to justify the findings recorded by the appellate authority and according to him no interference should be made in the impugned judgments. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgments and I find that the appellate authority has patently erred in treating plot Nos. 13, 461, 462 and 632 as irrigated without mentioning the datas on the basis of which the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the aforesaid plots could be termed as irrigated under the provisions of the aforesaid Ceiling Act. The appellate authority should examine the claim of the Petitioner with regard to unirrigated land in the light of the dictum of law laid down by this Court in Ghasi Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1978 All 9 . 7. The appellate authority has not indicated in its judgment as to whether the property belonged to the natural father of the Petitioner or the ancestral property was in the hands of the Petitioner's natural father. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1978 All 9 . 7. The appellate authority has not indicated in its judgment as to whether the property belonged to the natural father of the Petitioner or the ancestral property was in the hands of the Petitioner's natural father. It is difficult to say on the materials before me that the Petitioner got any right in the property of his natural father by virtue of his birth in the family. The appellate authority has accepted the claim of the State on the ground that the Petitioner's name was recorded over the property of his natural father and the same was corrected in the year 1973 hence the appellate authority is under the impression that the Petitioner continued in cultivatory possession of the land belonging to his natural father. It is admitted that after the adoption of the Petitioner by his adoptive father his natural father died and on the date of his death the Petitioner would not be his son in the eye of law and even if his name continues in the property of his natural father, there cannot be any presumption that the Petitioner continued in cultivatory possession over the land. It is true that the Petitioner got his name corrected during the consolidation operations in the year 1973 but that would not give any cause for adverse inference against the Petitioner. In this case I am satisfied that the Petitioner's name over the property of his natural father wrongly continued and on that basis it cannot be said that the property belonged to the Petitioner on 8-6-1973 when the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were applied to the area in dispute. In my opinion the appellate authority has failed to examine the claim of the Petitioner in right perspective. It is difficult to say that the Petitioner would hold the property on 8-6-73 when he had severed all connections with the family of his natural father as back as the year 1957. As the appellate authority has not examined the Petitioner's claim from correct angle, its judgment deserves to be quashed. 8. The appellate authority has also patently erred in observing that the Petitioner had no locus standi to file the appeal. As the appellate authority has not examined the Petitioner's claim from correct angle, its judgment deserves to be quashed. 8. The appellate authority has also patently erred in observing that the Petitioner had no locus standi to file the appeal. According to the appellate authority if the land declared surplus area was amongst the plots belonging to the Petitioner's natural father, the Petitioner was not at all aggrieved, hence he could not maintain the appeal. On the material before me it has been demonstrated that the plot No. 632 is not one of the plots belonging to the Petitioner's natural father. Rather, the aforesaid plots belong to the adoptive father of the Petitioner. Hence, it is apparent that the appellate authority has misappreciated the fact and has drawn patently erroneous conclusion therefrom. Moreover, the appellate authority has not appreciated this aspect of the matter that if the Petitioner does not get any share in the property of his natural father, then the determination of ceiling area of the Petitioner by the Prescribed Authority would be affected and to this extent the Petitioner had every locus-standi to challenge the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. In my opinion the appellate authority has patently erred in observing that the Petitioner had no locus standi to file the appeal. 9. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the Petitioner's claim in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs.