Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2650 (ALL)

HARI NANDAN SINGH. v. DISTRICT JUDGE, BIJNOR

2007-10-25

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30.3.1984 and 18.10.1984 passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, Annexures 6 and 9 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The ceiling proceeding was initiated against the petitioners. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioners, declaring their certain land as surplus. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed the objection before the Prescribed Authority which was decided. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was partly allowed, declaring that the petitioners are in occupation only on 23.21 acres of irrigated land and surplus land was declared up to 2.74 acres. The petitioners further submitted that the order passed by the Competent Authority has become final. 4. A notice under Section 29 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioners with the allegation that the land, which was declared as a grove land in possession of the petitioners, nature of the said grove land has been changed, therefore, on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, the land belonging to the petitioners has come in excess of the ceiling limit. The allegation made against the petitioners that the benefit of grove land, which was given to the petitioners, the nature of the same has been changed i.e. being used for agricultural land. 5. The petitioners filed an objection stating all the facts to this effect that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Competent Authority, the permission was taken from the various departments which was granted to the petitioners vide order dated 12th May, 1976. The permission was granted with the condition that "the permit holder is bound to replant the equal number of trees of good quality which have been allowed to cut under permit within one year", petitioners after obtaining the permission have planted the trees and nature of the said land has not been changed but the Prescribed Authority without verifying the said fact that on the vesting date i.e. 24.1.1971 what was the nature of the land, which is to be declared as surplus. If it has been determined that it is a grove land on the vested date i.e. 24.1.1971 and it has been treated to be a grove land, the authority concerned has got no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 29 of the Act. 6. It has been submitted by Sri Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is an Act called as U.P. Protection of Trees Act, 1976. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act gives power to the authority to give permission to an applicant to make an application for such manner and if there is any violation of any of the provisions mentioned thereunder, it provides for prosecution. Section 10 of the aforesaid Act is relevant for the said purpose. The same is being quoted below : “10. Penalty for felling or removal of trees in contravention of Section 4.—Whoever fells or causes to be felled any standing tree, or cuts, removes or otherwise disposes of any fallen tree, in contravention of the provisions of Section 4, or contravenes any condition of any permission granted under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.” 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has also been dismissed. The Appellate Court without considering the relevant facts that the permission was granted during the pendency of the proceedings before the Ceiling Authority and the grove land which was in possession of the petitioners, was determined and the same has been finalised, decided holding as a grove, therefore, the Ceiling Authority has got no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 29 of the Act. 8. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 464 of 1987, Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.2.1987. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that if there is no proof to this effect that the nature of the grove land has been changed prior to 24.1.1971, the Ceiling Authority has got no jurisdiction to treat it otherwise in that case. In that case certain trees were planted on the land after 24.1.1971. In that case certain trees were planted on the land after 24.1.1971. The case of the appellant was that it has been planted and were in existence prior to 24.1.1971 and the same has been cut down after the permission granted by the Competent Authority. The Apex Court has held that it will be treated to be a grove land and the Ceiling Authority has got no jurisdiction to declare it surplus after finalisation of the proceedings under the Act. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the petitioners have changed the nature of the land as being agriculture, which was mentioned in the report submitted by the Tehsildar, therefore, as provided under Section 29 of the Act a notice was given to the petitioners. 10. I have heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. 11. From the record it appears that on the date of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act the land in dispute was a grove land. It was determined by the Ceiling Authority being a grove land and benefits to that effect was given to the petitioners. It is also clear from the record that the permission to cut the certain trees from relevant department was granted on May 12, 1976, when the proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was pending against petitioners, the same has been finalised on 13.11.1978. Therefore, it is presumed that the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority and the District Administration were having knowledge about the permission granted to the petitioners for cutting down certain trees and the permission was granted with the conditions that the similar nature and number of trees will be planted by the petitioners and the nature of the land will remain grove land. It is also clear from the record that after issuance of notice under Section 29 of the Act, the Tehsildar or any authority including the Prescribed Authority has not made any spot inspection to verify the fact whether the nature of that gove land has been changed or not? It is also clear from the record that after issuance of notice under Section 29 of the Act, the Tehsildar or any authority including the Prescribed Authority has not made any spot inspection to verify the fact whether the nature of that gove land has been changed or not? It was obligatory on the part of the Prescribed Authority to make spot inspection, if on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar he was satisfied that the nature of the said grove land has been changed and that is being used for the purposes of agriculture. 12. In my opinion only on the basis or report submitted by the Tehsildar, no final conclusion can be arrived at by the Prescribed Authority holding therein that the petitioners had changed the nature of the grove land and the Appellate Authority has also not considered the aforesaid fact. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the orders passed by the Authority below dated 30.3.1984 and 18.10.1984 passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed and orders dated 30.3.1984 and 18.10.1984 passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. —————