Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 1211 (ALL)

Ram Sewak v. Ram Beti

1992-09-07

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 28.8.1992 passed in case No. 9/1991-92 - Ram Sewak v. Smt. Ram Beti in proceeding under Section 27 (4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. From the perusal of record it appears that allotment of agricultural ceiling land was challenged before the Addl. Commissioner. He initially granted the stay application but when it was moved to the court of the Commissioner to vacate the stay order the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 28.8.1992 vacated the stay order which was granted earlier ex-parte by Addl. Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the allotment of ceiling land will be also covered under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in view of the fact that in the Ceiling Act the priority for the allotment has been indicated to be that as provided in Section 198 (1) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. This case will not be covered in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the Act. The provision of Section 27 (4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 provides the cancellation of the allotment of surplus agricultural ceiling land. Therefore whatever the provisions for revision and appeal is provided in that Act will be applicable. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not show me the law point that the proceedings which are decided under Ceiling Act will be filed before the court. The common practise is that the order of the Commissioner in the Ceiling of the Agricultural Land Holdings Act is not revisable or appealable before the Board but the order of the Commissioner is a subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the revision under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the proceeding of cancellation of allotment of surplus land will not be covered. The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hence they cannot be club together. 5. Therefore, the revision under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the proceeding of cancellation of allotment of surplus land will not be covered. The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hence they cannot be club together. 5. There is also no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the proceeding for cancellation of allotment under Section 198 (4) off U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. If this would have been the case of revisionist first should have file the proceeding for cancellation of allotment of land before the Collector rather than filing the initial proceeding before the Court of Commissioner under Section 27 (4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Hence the revision is not maintainable under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Therefore it is rejected summarily.