Shiv Ram Singh v. State of U. P. — 1979 DIGILAW 179 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : K.N. SETH, J. 1. In response to the notice issued to the tenure-holder u/s 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the objections raised by the tenure-holder was that two of the plots held by him had been wrongly shown as irrigated land. The Prescribed Authority as also the appellate authority, rejected the objection on the ground that the tenure-holder had not filed the relevant documents to show that the plots in question were wrongly classified as irrigated land. In the writ petition challenging the legality of the orders of the Ceiling Authorities, which came up for hearing before Hon'ble Mufti, J. it was contended that irrespective of the fact whether the tenure-holder had filed the relevant documents or not it was the duty of the Prescribed Authority to verify the correctness of the objection by reference to the relevant revenue records. Reliance was placed on the rule laid down in Shital Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1978 All 253 to the effect that in view of Section 4-A of the Act it is the duty of the Prescribed Authority to verify the correctness of the objections by reference to the relevant revenue records whether they are filed by the objector or not. The learned Judge expressed doubt about the correctness of this view and has referred the following question for the opinion of the Bench: Whether under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the Prescribed Authority is under a legal obligation to verify the entry about the classification of land contained in the statement prepared u/s 10(1) by reference to the revenue records, whenever an objection is raised in that behalf, irrespective of the fact whether such revenue records are filed by the objector or not? 2. Section 5 of the Act provides that on and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate, throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. 2. Section 5 of the Act provides that on and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate, throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Proceeding for determination of the ceiling area is initiated by the Prescribed Authority by issuing a general notice published in the Official Gazette, calling upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the enforcement of the Act to submit to him within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice a statement in respect of all his holdings in the Form prescribed. The tenure-holder is also required to indicate the plots for which he claims exemption and also those which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him (Section 9(1)). 3. Section 10(1) of the Act provides: In every case where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted u/s 9, the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary either by himself or by any person subordinate to him, cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be Prescribed. It further provides: The statement shall in particular indicate the land, if any, exempted u/s 6 and the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. 4. By Sub-section (2) of Section 10 the Prescribed Authority is required to cause to be served upon every such tenure-holder, a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under Sub-section (1) calling upon him to show cause within a specified period why the statement be not taken as correct. The term "prescribed" has been defined in Section 3(12) of the Act to mean "Prescribed by rules made under this Act." Rule 7 inter alia provides that soon after the issue of general (notice in C.L.H. Form 1, the Prescribed Authority shall, after making necessary enquiries, cause to be prepared a statement in C.L.H. Form 3. C.L.H. Form 3' contains various columns which are to be filled in for purposes of determining the ceiling area as contemplated by Section 5(1) of the Act. C.L.H. Form 3' contains various columns which are to be filled in for purposes of determining the ceiling area as contemplated by Section 5(1) of the Act. In the Form plot numbers, their area, the irrigated area, single crop land, unirrigated area, usar land and grove land etc. have to be shown. 5. Section 11(1) of the Act lays down that where the statement submitted by a tenure-holder in pursuance of the notice published u/s 9, is accepted by the Prescribed Authority or where the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority u/s 10 is not disputed within the Specified period, the Prescribed Authority shall accordingly determine the surplus land of the tenure-holder. 6. Sub-section (2) provides that on application made within thirty days from the date of the order under Sub-section (1) by a tenure-holder aggrieved by such order, the Prescribed Authority shall set aside the order and allow such tenure-holder to file objection against the statement prepared u/s 10 and proceed to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 if the order u/s 10(1) was passed in his absence and sufficient cause was shown for the absence of the tenure-holder. 7. Section 12 of the Act provides for decision of the objections filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 or Sub-section (2) of Section 11 or because of any appellate order u/s 13 after affording the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence. 8. The ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder is to be determined in terms of irrigated land which it defined in the Act to mean "land determined as such in the manner laid down in Section 4-A". Section 4-A was inserted in the Act by U.P. Act II of 1975 with retrospective effect from 8th June, 1973. Prior to insertion of this section the manner of determination of the irrigated land was contained in Rule 4 framed under the Act. Section 4-A was inserted in the Act by U.P. Act II of 1975 with retrospective effect from 8th June, 1973. Prior to insertion of this section the manner of determination of the irrigated land was contained in Rule 4 framed under the Act. The relevant part of Section 4-A reads as follows: The Prescribed Authority shall examine the relevant khsaras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary and may also make local inspection where It considers necessary, and thereupon if the Prescribed Authority is of opinion Firstly, (a) that irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any Crop in any one of the aforesaid years, by (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in notification No. 1579-W/XXIII-62-W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time, or (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years; or Secondly, that irrigation facility, become available to any land by a State irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice u/s 10; or thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year: then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purposes of this Act. 9. The expression 'unirrigated land' means any land other than irrigated land, grove land or usar land. 9. The expression 'unirrigated land' means any land other than irrigated land, grove land or usar land. 'Grove land' means, any specific piece of land in a holding having trees (not including guava, papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before January 24, 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose and the trees on such land constitute a grove. 'Usar land' means land determined to be usar in such manner as may be prescribed. 10. Rule 3-A of the Rules framed under the Act defines that any land included in a holding which was not used for growing crops during the year 1376 Fasli to 1380 Fasli (both inclusive) due to the presence of salinity, stone, grit or kankar shall be treated to be an usar land. 11. As noted earlier, the notice issued to a tenure-holder u/s 10(1) of the Act is to be accompanied by a statement containing particulars prescribed in Form C.L.H. 3. While preparing the statement, the Prescribed Authority has to classify the various plots held by a tenure-holder as defined in the Act. In Section 4-A the legislature has laid down the manner for determination of the land as irrigated land. A duty is cast on the Prescribed Authority to examine the relevant khasra extracts for the years 1378 F. to 1380 F., the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary in order to determine whether a land is to be classified as irrigated land for the purposes of the Act. This obligation is cast on the Prescribed Authority at the stage of preparing the statement which is to accompany the notice to the tenure-holder u/s 10(1) of the Act. Section 4-A does not indicate that at that stage any opportunity is to be afforded to the tenure-holder to lead evidence for classification of the land as irrigated land. The use of the word 'determine' in Section 4-A does not lead to the inference that the decision has to be made judicially. The word is equally applicable to decisions arrived at even otherwise than judicially. The use of the word 'determine' in Section 4-A does not lead to the inference that the decision has to be made judicially. The word is equally applicable to decisions arrived at even otherwise than judicially. This is clear from the various meanings of the word as mentioned in the Webster Dictionary e.g. "to decide by authoritative and judicial sentence; as the court has determined the cause; to pronounce formally; to state; to announce, to come to a decision concerning, as the result of investigation, reasoning etc. as I am unable to determine its meaning; to obtain definite and first band knowledge of as to character, location, quantity or the like; as to determine a rock, a route, the salt in sea water." 12. While preparing the statement containing particulars of the land held by the tenure-holder, the Prescribed Authority acts administratively. By enacting Section 4-A the legislature has laid down the guide line for the Prescribed Authority to follow while classifying the land as irrigated land. A presumption would be raised that in preparing the statement the Prescribed Authority acted in the manner Prescribed by the Act on the principle contained in illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. As observed by the Supreme Court in Gopal Narain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, AIR 1964 SC 370 there is a presumption, when a statutory authority makes an order that it has followed the prescribed procedure. The same view has been reiterated in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur Vs. Thakur Manmohan Deo and Others, AIR 1966 SC 1931 wherein it was observed that if official act is proved to have been done it will be presumed to have been regularly done. 13. Since it is legitimate to raise a presumption that the statement prepared in C.L.H. Form 3 has been prepared in the manner prescribed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the correctness of the entries in the statement has to be accepted unless shown otherwise. If the tenure-holder does not file any objection, the Prescribed Authority is empowered to determine the surplus land on the basis of the particulars contained in the statement prepared under C.L.H. Form 3. If the tenure-holder does not file any objection, the Prescribed Authority is empowered to determine the surplus land on the basis of the particulars contained in the statement prepared under C.L.H. Form 3. It is only when an objection has been filed by the tenure-holder disputing the correctness of the statement that there ensues a dispute and law requires that the determination of the surplus land shall be made by the Prescribed Authority after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence. In view of the presumption of correctness of the entries contained in the statement the burden of proof lies on the person who challenges the correctness of the particulars. At this stage the tenure-holder has to produce evidence in order to successfully challenge the correctness of the particulars contained in the statement. If it is claimed that the land in dispute is grove within the meaning of the Act it is for the tenure-holder to establish that the trees on the land were not guava, papaya, banana or vine plants and were planted before January 24,1971 in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose. Similarly if it is claimed that the land is usar the test laid down in Rule 3-A will have to be satisfied by the tenure-holder by leading evidence to that effect. Similarly if it is claimed that land has been wrongly classified as irrigated land, the burden rests on the tenure-holder to establish that fact. It would not be enough to say that since by Section 4-A the legislature has laid down the principle and the manner for classifying the land as irrigated, a duty is cast on the Prescribed Authority to verify the correctness of the objection by reference to the revenue records. At the same time it would also not be sound to assert that the objection of the tenure-holder could be thrown out on the ground that he did not file copies of the Khasra extracts of 1378 F. to 1380 F. To support the plea raised by him a party is expected to bring on record such material on which he seeks reliance. If the material which supports the plea raised by him is already available on the record, it is open to him to refer to that material without himself bringing it in as a part of his evidence. While preparing the statement an obligation is cast on the Prescribed Authority to examine the relevant khasra extracts for the years 1378 F. to 1380 F. the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary. Since the statement is prepared by the Prescribed Authority on the basis of the materials mentioned in Section 4-A, these materials may be taken as available on record. It is open to a tenure-holder without filing copies of these documents to refer to them in support of the objection raised by him. If for example, the Prescribed Authority makes local inspection, his report can be referred to by the tenure-holder without filing a copy of it. Similarly the khasra extracts of 1378 F. to 1380 F. may be referred to by a tenure-holder in support of his objection without filing certified copies of these documents. The Prescribed Authority would not be justified in throwing out the objection merely on the ground that certified copies of the relevant extracts were not filed by the tenure-holder. 14. Apart from the material which may already be available on record if the tenure-holder intends to rely on any other material, it is for him to bring that evidence on record. At the stage of the proceedings u/s 12 of the Act the right of the tenure-holder is not confined to the materials mentioned in Section 4-A of the Act. As observed earlier, it is at the stage of preparing the statement u/s 10(1) of the Act that the enquiry by the Prescribed Authority is to be confined to matters referred to in Section 4-A. No limitation has been placed on the right of the tenure-holder to produce evidence in support of his objection when the Prescribed Authority is called upon to decide the objections after recording his reasons and determine the surplus land, for at this stage the determination has to be made judicially. It appears that the attention of the Bench hearing the case in Jaswant Singh v. State of U.P. 1978 AWC 577 was not invited to this aspect of the matter which led the Bench to make the observation that while classifying the land as irrigated land oral evidence was not permissible before the Prescribed Authority. 15. As a result of the discussion made above, our answer to the question referred to is as follows: While dealing with an objection to a statement prepared u/s 10(1) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority is not on its own obliged to verify the entry about classification of land contained in the statement with reference to relevant records. However, while pressing his objections relating to classification of land as irrigated land the objector can without filing copies of the documents on the basis of which the statement had been prepared, refer to and rely on them as they form part of the material already on the record. Accordingly, such an objection cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that copies of documents referred to in Section 4-A of the Act have not been filed. If the objector relies on any other evidence, it is his burden to bring the same on record.