S.P. MEHROTRA, J. — Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. The petitioner as filed Rejoider Affidavit in reply to the said Counter Affidavit. 2. The Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashin8 the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue)/Pre-scribed Authority (Ceiling), Mirzapur (respondent No. 4) in Case No. 1/Compensation, Year 2002-03, and the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2007 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2). 4. It is, inter-alia, averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was the owner and in possession of Khata No. 23, Plot Nos. 204-kha, 205-kha, area 0.345 hectare; Khata No. 29, Plot Nos. 65, 266, 192, 275, 276-kha, 277, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 388, area 6.290 hectare; Khata No- 71, Plot Nos- 445- 97, 334, 131, 337, 191, 342, 198, 340, 199, 358, 203, 359, 335, 360, 336, 361, 362, 364, 365 situated in Village Lahaura, Pareana-Sakteshgarh, Tehsil-Chunar, District-Mirzapur. 5. It is, inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that Plot Nos. 276-kha, 277, 373, 374, 375-M, 388' area 2-184 hec-tare, (8-15-0 Bigha) of the petitioner was declared as surplus land m the proceeding under the U. P. Imposition of ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short "The Ceiling Act, I960"); and that 7 trees of Mango, 9 trees of Mahua, 4 trees of Neem were standing over the surplus land at the time of taking pos session thereof on 24.2.1975, and also the crops of the petitioner, namely, Chana and Arhar were standing at the time of taking possession of the surplus land on 24.2.1975. 6. Copy of C.L.H. Form No. 8 showing particulars of surplus land prepared under Rule 21 (i) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (in short "The Ceiling Rules, 1961") has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. 7.
6. Copy of C.L.H. Form No. 8 showing particulars of surplus land prepared under Rule 21 (i) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (in short "The Ceiling Rules, 1961") has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. 7. It is, inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that no compensation for the acquired land, trees and crops was paid to the petitioner since the date of taking possession, i.e., 24.2.1975; and that the respondent No. 4 sent a Letter dated 14.1.1999, alongwith the original file pertaining to compensation in re spect of the petitioner, to the Tehsildar, Chunar, District-Mirzapur giving refer ence of an earlier Letter dated 24.12.1998 sent to the said Tehsildar, and requiring the said Tehsildar to correct the said original file and send back the same af ter correcting the same. Copy of the said Letter dated 14.1.1999 has been filed as- Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. 8. It is, inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that after all the papers relating to the petitioner sent by the Tehsildar-Chunar to the respondent No. 4 were received, a case, namely, Case No. 1/Compensation of 2002-03 was registered; and that after receiving the notice, the petitioner filed an Applica tion before the Chief Revenue Officer, Mirzapur dated 16.4.2002, inter-alia, praying that compensation in regard to the surplus land be awarded at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per Bigha, and further, interest at the rate of 15% per annum be also awarded, and further, compensa tion in respect of the trees existing on the surplus land and the damage to the crops standing at the time of taking pos session of the surplus land be also awarded. It is averred that on the said Application, the Chief Revenue Officer, Mirzapur passed an Order dated 16.4.2002 directing the Nayab Tehsildar to submit his report. Copy of the said Application dated 16.4.2002 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. 9. It is pertinent to note that along with the Counter Affidavit filed on be half of the respondents, copy of C.L.H. Form No. 9 prepared under Rule 21 (ii) of the Ceiling Rules, 1961 has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the Counter Affi davit. 10.
9. It is pertinent to note that along with the Counter Affidavit filed on be half of the respondents, copy of C.L.H. Form No. 9 prepared under Rule 21 (ii) of the Ceiling Rules, 1961 has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the Counter Affi davit. 10. A perusal of the said C.L.H. Form No. 9 shows that in regard to the "particulars of buildings, masonry wells, tube-wells, channels and trees existing on surplus land", it is men tioned "Nadarad", i.e., not existing. 11. Further, along-with the Counter Affidavit, C.L.H. Form No. 11 prepared under Rule 23 of the Ceiling Rules, 1961 has been filed as Annexure CA-2 to the Counter Affidavit. 12. A perusal of the said C.L.H. Form No. 11 shows that in Column 6 thereof, the "area of surplus land" has been mentioned as 5.47 acres, i.e., 8-15-0 Bighas. The said C.L.H. Form No. 11 further shows that in Column 7 thereof, which deals with the "aggregate of land revenue at hereditary rate in Column 12 of C.L.H. Form No. 8", the said aggre gate as per C.L.H. Form No. 8 (Annex-ure-1 to the Writ Petition) has been men tioned as 18.15. Again, in Column No. 8 of C.L.H. Form No. 11 regarding "ag gregate of land revenue payable as in Column 13 of C.L.H. Form 8", the said aggregate per C.L.H. Form No. 8 (An nexure 1 to the Writ Petition) has been mentioned as 18.15. Accordingly, in Column No. 10 of C.L.H. Form No. 11 regarding "40 times the amount in Col umn 7", the said figure has been com puted as 40 times of 18.15 (mentioned In Column No. 7), that is, Rs. 726.00. 13. Copy of C.L.H. Form No. 12. that is, Draft Assessment Roll prepared under Rule 24 of the Ceiling Rules, 1961 with the help of the statement in C.L.H. Form No. 11, has been filed as Annex-ure-4 to the Writ Petition. 14. A perusal of the said C.L.H. Form No. 12, dated 30.9.2003 shows that in Column No. 5 thereof, the "area of surplus land" has been mentioned as 5.47 acres, that is, 3-15-0 Bighas. Again, the said C.L.H. Form No. 12 further shows that in Column No. 6 thereof, the "amount payable in respect of" the sur plus land has been shown as Rs. 726.00. The said C.L.H. Form No. 12 further shows that an amount of Rs.
Again, the said C.L.H. Form No. 12 further shows that in Column No. 6 thereof, the "amount payable in respect of" the sur plus land has been shown as Rs. 726.00. The said C.L.H. Form No. 12 further shows that an amount of Rs. 72.60 was to be adjusted towards damages, and the balance Rs. 653.40 was thus payable to the petitioner. 15. The Additional District Magis trate (Finance and Revenue)/Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Chief Revenue Of ficer, Mirzapur (respondent/No. 4) by the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition), inter-alia, held that at present, there was no tree on the spot; and that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of trees on the surplus land during the relevant period; and that in the circumstances, payment of compensation in respect of the trees was not justified. It was, inter-alia, further held that the compensation in respect of the acquired surplus land was payable to the petitioner at the rate prescribed in section 17 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 read with Part-I of the Sched ule to the Ceiling Act, 1960; and that on the basis of C.L.H. Form Nos. 8,9,10 and 49, the amount of compensation in re spect of 8-15-00 Bighas of surplus land had been rightly computed in C.L.H. Form Nos. 11 and 12 as amounting to 40 times of Rs. 18.15 (i.e., land revenue), which amounted to Rs. 726.00; and that after adjusting Rs. 72.60 in respect of damages, the compensation payable was Rs. 653.40; and that in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, as amended, interest at the rate of 3-1/2% per annum was payable on the amount of compensation with effect from the date of taking possession of the surplus land. 16. Copy of the said Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2005, as noted above, has been filed as Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition. 17. Against the said Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2005, the petitioner filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 112/166 of 2005. 18. By the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2007, the Additional Commis sioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2) dismissed the said Appeal filed by the petitioner. 19.
17. Against the said Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2005, the petitioner filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 112/166 of 2005. 18. By the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2007, the Additional Commis sioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2) dismissed the said Appeal filed by the petitioner. 19. It was, inter-alia, held by the re spondent No. 2 that a perusal of C.L.H. Form No. 9 showed that no tree was available on the spot at the time of tak ing possession of the surplus land; and that at present, no tree was available on the spot; and that the petitioner had failed to establish the existence of trees on the surplus land during the relevant period; and that in the circumstances, the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue)/Prescribed Authority (Ceil ing)/Chief Revenue Officer, Mirzapur (respondent No. 4) concluded that pay ment of compensation in respect of the trees was not justified; and that there was no legal infirmity in the Order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Addi tional Collector (Finance and Reve nue)/Prescribed Authority (Ceil ing)/Chief Revenue Officer, Mirzapur (respondent No. 4). 20. Copy of the said Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2007, as noted earlier, has been filed as Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition. 21. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 22. I have heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 23. Sri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the follow ing submissions: (I) The respondents were bound to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the surplus land at the market value of such land. Reference, is made to Namuna 11 Husularaji (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition), and it is submitted that as per the said document, the circle rate was Rs. 28,750/- per bigha, and accord ingly, the amount of compensation came to Rs. 2,47,750/-. Reference is also made to a document designated as @ Hindi @ (Annex-ure-6 to the Writ Petition) wherein the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner was shown as Rs. 2,53,570/- in respect of the acquired surplus land and Rs. 36,000/- in re spect of the trees on such land. It is submitted that compensation awarded to the petitioner as per the impugned Orders was, thus, wholly inadequate.
2,53,570/- in respect of the acquired surplus land and Rs. 36,000/- in re spect of the trees on such land. It is submitted that compensation awarded to the petitioner as per the impugned Orders was, thus, wholly inadequate. (II) The compensation ought to have been awarded in respect of the trees which were existing on the ac quired surplus land. Ever, though at present the trees were not existing on the spot, but at the time of taking possession of tlie surplus land, the trees were existing on the such land. The findings to the contrary recorded in the impugned Orders are per verse. Reliance is placed on the Statements (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) recorded before the respon dent No. 4 in the aforementioned Case No. 1/Compensation of 2002-03. Reference is also made to the Re ports (Annexure-8 to the Writ Peti tion). It is submitted that in view of the said Statements and the said Re ports, it was established that the trees were existing on the surplus land at the time of taking possession thereof, and the said trees were sub sequently cut by the allottees of the surplus land for doing cultivation. Therefore, the compensation ought to have been awarded in respect of the trees also. (III) In view of the considerable delay in the payment of compensa tion to the petitioner in respect of the acquired surplus land, the petitioner ought to have been awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of taking possession, namely, 24.2.1975 or at the interest rate prevailing at present in the mar ket. 24. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has made following submissions : (I) The petitioner was not enti tled to compensation at the market value of the acquired surplus land. The "amount" payable to the peti tioner in respect of the acquired sur plus land was to be determined as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 read with Clause (a) of Part-I of the Schedule to the Ceiling Act, 1960. According to the said provisions, the "amount" payable to the petitioner was 40 times of the land revenue which came to Rs. 726.00, and after deducting Rs. 72.60 towards dam ages, the "amount" payable to the petitioner was Rs. 653.40.
According to the said provisions, the "amount" payable to the petitioner was 40 times of the land revenue which came to Rs. 726.00, and after deducting Rs. 72.60 towards dam ages, the "amount" payable to the petitioner was Rs. 653.40. Reference to the documents an nexed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Pe tition (Namuna 11 Husularaji) and Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition (des ignated as @ Hindi @ wherein the quantum of compensa tion was shown on the basis of circle rate, was not relevant as the "amount" payable in respect of the acquired surplus land was to be de termined in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960. (II) The Authorities below on a consideration of the evidence on re cord' have held that at present, no trees were available on the spot, and the petitioner failed to establish the existence of trees during the relevant period, and in view of the said find ings, it was concluded that no com pensation was to be paid to the peti tioner in respect of the trees. The findings recorded by the Authorities below are based on a consideration of the material on record, and there, is no illegality or perversity in the said findings. No interference is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India (III)The rate of interest to be awarded has been laid-down in sub section (2) of section 22 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 as 3-1/2% per annum from the date of taking possession of the surplus land. The impugned Orders have accordingly, awarded interest to the petitioner at 3-1/2% from the date of taking possession of the sur plus land, and no illegality has, thus, been committed by the Authorities below in this regard. 25. I have considered the submis sions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
The impugned Orders have accordingly, awarded interest to the petitioner at 3-1/2% from the date of taking possession of the sur plus land, and no illegality has, thus, been committed by the Authorities below in this regard. 25. I have considered the submis sions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Taking up the First Submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, that the compensa tion ought to have been awarded to the petitioner in respect of the acquired surplus land at the market value of such land, it is pertinent to refer to the provi sions of section 17 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 which is reproduced below : "17.Manner of calculation of [amount].—(1) Subject to the provi sions of sub-section (2), every tenure-holder, whose surplus land has vested in the State under the provi sions of this Act, shall be entitled to receive and be paid [amount] as laid down in the Schedule and as deter mined in the matter provided here inafter. [(2) The sub-tenant or asami of the tenure-holder, not being an asami mentioned in section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall be entitled to receive and be paid a portion out of the amount payable to the tenure-holder. The proportion of amount payable to the sub-tenant or the asami shall be the aggregate of the land revenue for the unexpired pe riod of his subordinate interest com puted at hereditary rates, so how ever, that the sub-tenant or the asami shall not in any case, be entitled to more than one-fourth of the amount payable to the tenure-holder. The amount shall be apportioned be tween the tenure-holder and the sub tenant or the asami by the Prescribed Authority].
The amount shall be apportioned be tween the tenure-holder and the sub tenant or the asami by the Prescribed Authority]. (3) Nothing in this Act shall pre vent any person, not being a person referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), having any right, title or interest in the surplus land, or any person hav ing claim to [amount] against the person entitled thereto under the provisions of this Act, from claiming any right, title or interest in such [amount] in any Court of competent jurisdiction." Reference may also be made to the relevant portion of the Schedule to the Ceiling Act, 1960, which is as under: "Schedule (Section 17) Part I (Areas where the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applied) (a) Bhumindar (b).... Forty times of the land revenue determined at hereditary rates applicable [***]; and where the land revenue payable is less than that determined at hereditary rates applicable, an additional amount equal to twenty times of difference between the two. Part II (Areas where Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950' does not apply) Part III Government Lessee Part IV (a) Buildings............... (b) .............................. (c) Trees- (1) Fruit bearing trees Note-[****] (2) For young fruit trees which have not yet borne fruits. (3) Trees whose value lies mainly in the timber thereof. Eight times the annual fair average value of fruit crops. Cost of the plant and expenditure on labour and planting. [Eight times the annual fair average value of such trees.] Explanation.—For the purposes of item (c) the expression 'average value', in relation to a tree, means the arithmetic means of twenty years' profits accruing from such tree." 26. It is pertinent to note that prior to its repeal by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, Article 31 of the Constitution of India dealt with the compulsory acquisition of property. Prior to the Constitution (25th Amend ment) Act, 1971, Clause (2) of Article 31 provided for payment of "compensa tion" in case of acquisition of property of a person. By the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971, Clause (2) of Article 31 was substituted, and the word "compensation" occurring earlier in Clause (2) of Article 31 was replaced by the word "amount". 27. The validity of the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971 was ques tioned in Keshwanand Bharti v. The State of Kerala(1973) Supp.
By the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971, Clause (2) of Article 31 was substituted, and the word "compensation" occurring earlier in Clause (2) of Article 31 was replaced by the word "amount". 27. The validity of the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971 was ques tioned in Keshwanand Bharti v. The State of Kerala(1973) Supp. SCR 1 = AIR 1973 SC 1461 . The Supreme Court upheld the above amendment made in Clause (2) of Article 31 of the Constitution of India. It was held that for acquisition of any property of a person, it was not necessary to pay the market value of such property. The person may be paid an "amount" lower than the market value of the property acquired. 28. Keeping in view the amend ment made in Clause (2) of Article 31 of the Constitution of India, sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 was also amended, and it provides for the payment of "amount" to the tenure- holder for the acquired surplus land, and such amount is to be determined as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960 including Schedule thereto. There fore, the tenure-holder whose surplus land is acquired is not entitled to claim market-value of such land. He is only entitled to get "amount" as per the pro visions of the Ceiling Act, 1960 includ ing Schedule thereto. 29. Clause (a) of Part I of the Schedule to the Ceiling Act, 1960 pro vides for determination of the "amount" payable to a Bhumidhar for the acquired surplus land. As per the said Clause (a), such "amount" is 40 times of the land revenue. As is evident from a perusal of C.L.H. Form No. 11 (Annexure CA-2 to the Counter Affidavit), C.L.H. Form No. 12 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) and the impugned Orders passed by the Au thorities below, the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the acquired surplus land has been determined by applying the above formula, namely, 40 times of the land revenue. Thus, the amount payable, in my view, has been rightly computed in accordance with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960 in cluding Schedule thereto, and no inter ference is called for with the impugned Orders on the said ground. 30.
Thus, the amount payable, in my view, has been rightly computed in accordance with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960 in cluding Schedule thereto, and no inter ference is called for with the impugned Orders on the said ground. 30. As regards the reference made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the documents annexed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition (Namuna 11 Husularaji) and Annexure-6 to the Writ Peti tion (designated as @ Hindi @ wherein the quantum of compensa tion was shown on the basis of circle rate, the same are not relevant as the "amount" payable in respect of the ac quired surplus land was to be deter mined in accordance with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960 including Schedule thereto, as mentioned above. 31. Coming now to the Second Sub mission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, that the com pensation ought to have been awarded in respect of the trees which were exist ing on the acquired surplus land, it is relevant to refer to Rule 21 of the Ceiling Rules, 1961 which is as under : "[21. As soon as possession of the surplus land has been taken by the Collector under sub-section (8) of section 14, he shall cause the follow ing statements to be prepared in re spect of the tenure-holder concerned and send to the prescribed authority having jurisdiction to assess and pay amount for the surplus land— (i) statement in C.L.H. Form 8, showing particulars of surplus land; (ii) statement in C.L.H. Form 9, showing particulars of buildings, masonry wells, tube-wells, pucca irrigational channels and trees existing on the surplus land; (iii) statement in C.L.H. Form 10, in respect of arrears of land revenue or other dues recoverable under sec tion 41 of the Act by adjustment from amount.]" Clause (ii) of the above-quoted Rule 21, thus, requires preparation of statement in C.L.H. Form No. 9, "showing particulars of buildings, masonry wells, tube-wells, pucca irrigational channels and trees existing on the surplus land". 32. A perusal of Clause (c) of Part IV of the Schedule to the Ceiling Act, 1960 shows that the existence of the trees on the surplus land including their age and utility is to be established for claiming compensation in respect of the trees. 33.
32. A perusal of Clause (c) of Part IV of the Schedule to the Ceiling Act, 1960 shows that the existence of the trees on the surplus land including their age and utility is to be established for claiming compensation in respect of the trees. 33. In view of the above, it is a rele vant question of fact as to whether the trees were existing on the surplus land or not. 34. In the present case, the respon dent No. 4 (Prescribed Authority) as well as the respondent No. 2 (Appellate Authority) considered the material on record and held that at present, no trees were available on the spot, and the peti tioner had failed to establish the exis tence of trees on the surplus land during the relevant period. The Authorities be low took note of the fact that the peti tioner had not produced any documen tary evidence in regard to the existence of the trees on the surplus land, and the existence of the trees could not be taken -to be established merely on the basis of oral evidence as at present, no trees were in existence on the spot. 35. The above findings recorded by the Authorities below are based on a consideration of the material on record including the oral statements (Annex-ure-7 to the Writ Petition) and the Re ports (Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition) as also various C.L.H. Forms referred to herein-before. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the above findings recorded by the Authorities below. 36. In view of the said findings, there was no occasion to award any compensation to the petitioner in regard to the trees allegedly existing on the surplus land. 37. Coming now to the Third Sub mission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, that the inter est at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of taking possession, namely, 24.2.1975 or at the interest-rate prevail ing at present in the market, be awarded to the petitioner, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of section 22 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, which is reproduced below : "22.
Manner of payment of amount.—(1) The amount entered in assessment roll shall be deemed to have become due on the date on which possession of the land is taken under section 14, and where posses sion of different lands of the person entitled to the amount is taken on different dates, on the last of such dates. (2) There shall be paid by the State Government on the amount en tered in the assessment roll, interest at the rate of 3-1/2 per cent per an num from the date it becomes due under sub-section (1) to the date of its final determination under section 20 or section 21, as the case may be. (3) Subject to the provisions of section 23, the amount with interest referred to in sub-section (2) shall be paid— (i) if it does not exceed rupees one thousand, in cash in one lump-sum; (ii) in any other case, in five an nual instalments of which the first instalment shall be of rupees one thousand, and the remainder shall be payable in four years in annual equal instalments: Provided that the State Govern ment may, in its discretion, make full payment of the amount outstanding at any time: Provided also that in case of four annual instalments referred to in clause (ii), further interest on the amount outstanding shall be paid at the rate of 3-1/2 per cent per annum from the date of final determination of the amount under section 20 or section 21, as the case may be, till the date when each such instalment falls due. (4) The payment of the said amount in accordance with the pro visions of this Act, shall be full dis charge of all liability of the State Government in respect of the surplus land, but shall not prejudice the right of any other persons against the per son to whom such payment is so made in respect of the said amount." 38. In the present case, as noted ear lier, the date of taking possession of the surplus land from the petitioner was 24.2.1975. Therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, the amount payable in respect of the acquired surplus land would be deemed to have become due on 24.2.1975. 39.
In the present case, as noted ear lier, the date of taking possession of the surplus land from the petitioner was 24.2.1975. Therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, the amount payable in respect of the acquired surplus land would be deemed to have become due on 24.2.1975. 39. In view of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 22 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of 3-1/2% per annum on the amount payable in respect of the acquired surplus land from the date it became due, namely, 24.2.1975. The re spondent No. 4 (Prescribed Authority) has accordingly awarded interest to the petitioner at the rate of 3.5% per annum with effect from the date of taking pos session, namely, 24.2.1975. 40. In view of the specific provi sions contained in section 22 of the Ceil ing Act, 1960, there is no occasion to award interest to the petitioner at the rate of 15% per annum or at the interest-rate prevailing in the market, and the claim of the petitioner in this regard is misconceived. 41. In view of the above, no illegal ity has been committed by the Authori ties below in awarding interest to the petitioner at the rate of 3.5% per annum with effect from the date of taking pos session, namely, 24.2.1975. 42. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Peti tion lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 43. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. 44. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.
42. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Peti tion lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 43. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. 44. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. ______________ HHHH 2012 (116) RD 651 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT TARUN AGARWALA, J. MADHU CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and an other Writ Petition No. 328 (M/S) of 2011, With Writ Petition No. 1566 (M/S) of 2010 26-4-2011 U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961—Section 29—Removal of Adhyaksha— Ground—Abuse of powers—It is now settled law—Where an authority makes an order in exercise of qwasi-judicial function—It must record its reasons in support of order—No such reasoning has been given by authority in im pugned order—A clear case of legal malice is made out—State was under obligation to act fairly without ill will—A deliberate act was done in ut ter disregard to the rights of peti tioner—Impugned order quashed— Direction to restore petitioner to post of Adhyaksha Zila Panchayat forth with—Petitions allowed. (Paras 30, 32, 35, 37 and 38) @ Hindi @ U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961—Section 29—Ceasing of—Financial and Administrative power of Adhyaksha—Prima facie satisfaction of authority was not recorded in impugned order—Order does not indicate prima facie satisfac tion of authority concerned—With regard to financial irregularities— Before ceasing of financial and ad ministrative powers—No opportuni ties of hearing were provided to peti tioner—Impugned order ceasing fi nancial and administrative power— Quashed—Petition allowed. (Paras 36 and 38) __________________