Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4009 (ALL)

Ajeet Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-12-16

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjai Goswami for the State-respondent. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 and seeks quashing of the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, Additional Commissioner. 2. The proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated against the tenure holder Horam Singh, the father of the petitioners. A notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued to him on 8.11.1974, showing an area of 35-15-5 pucca bighas as liable to be declared as surplus in his hands. 3. The land recorded in the name of Horam Singh was situated in two villages namely Rohillapur and Chak Salarpur. Apart from the other objections, one objection was that the land of village chak Salarpur was situated in District Haryana and could not be taken into consideration for determining the surplus area under the U.P. Act, 1961. 4. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 17.1.1975 dismissed the objection of the petitioner and declared 35-15-5 bighas of land as surplus. It appears that a further direction was issued that this surplus land be taken possession from the land in village Chak Salarpur. The consequential appeal filed by the petitioner is stated to have been allowed and the matter remanded back to the Prescribed Authority. 5. Upon remand, the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 10.7.1985, again rejected the objection of the petitioners directing that the surplus land be taken possession of, from the land situated in village Rohillapur. The consequential appeal was dismissed on 10.7.1986. The petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition No. 17508 of 1986. 6. The aforesaid writ petition No. 17598 of 1986, filed by the petitioners, was allowed by the order dated 24.7.1997. The orders impugned were set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to look into the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the point as to whether the property of chak Salarpur is situated in U.P. or has been transferred to Haryana and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. 7. It appears that in the meantime, the land situated in village Rohillapur was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. 7. It appears that in the meantime, the land situated in village Rohillapur was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the ceiling Proceedings had not attained finality, and the land continued to be recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners, a dispute arose as to who was entitled to the compensation thereof. In this regard, a reference was made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which was decided. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed in the reference, the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 42166 of 2006 which was allowed on 12.4.2007 holding that the Collector could not have made the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The order passed in the reference was set aside. It was however, observed that it would be open to the State Government to seek its remedies in accordance with law and in accordance with paragraph 37 of the Judgment in the case of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another (2003) 3 SCC 128 . A categorical finding was recorded in this judgment that the Ceiling Proceedings have still not attained finality. 9. It appears that thereafter the Ceiling proceedings were re-started and the notice in this regard was issued to the petitioners. The case was registered as Case No. 2 of 2007. 10. The petitioners filed a writ petition for quashing these proceedings and also for release of the compensation payable to the petitioners. 11. This writ petition was allowed on 10.8.2010 with the direction that the compensation be paid to the petitioners along with 15% interest. 12. The order passed by the Division Bench, dated 10.8.2010, was challenged by means of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. 13. The Special Leave Petition was entertained. However, a direction was issued that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition would not come in the way of State proceeding with the Ceiling case No. 2 of 2007 which may be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months. 14. It is in pursuance of this direction that the Ceiling Proceedings have been decided by the order impugned in the writ petition. 15. 14. It is in pursuance of this direction that the Ceiling Proceedings have been decided by the order impugned in the writ petition. 15. The only point submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the land situated in the village Salarpur could not be taken into consideration while determining the surplus area in the hands of the tenure holder Horam Singh, the father of the petitioners. This could not have been done in view of the fact that the land of village Chak Salarpur was held to be land of Haryana. 16. The second submission made is that the land of the tenure holder village situated in Chak Salarpur have been acquired by the Union Government in 1951 and the same not being in possession of the petitioners, could not have been taken into consideration while determining the surplus area. 17. The third submission made is that the ceiling proceedings initiated against Horam Singh in the year 1974 have been dropped after the order of remand passed by this Court in the year 1974. These proceedings could not have been revived and in any case the proceedings which were subsequently initiated against the petitioners, were fresh proceedings, which could not have been decided on the basis of the position existing at the time the ceiling proceedings were initiated against their father, Horam Singh. 18. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Counsel for the State-respondents has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that the subordinate Authorities have rightly decided the case and the same calls for no interference. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. In the light of the submissions made, the first point that requires consideration is the effect of village Salarpur having vested in the State of Haryana in accordance with the Haryana and U.P. (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1979 w.e.f. the appointed date, namely 14.9.1983. The Ceiling Authorities have considered this aspect as was required in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 24.7.1997 passed in the writ petition No. 17508 of 1986. The Ceiling Authorities have considered this aspect as was required in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 24.7.1997 passed in the writ petition No. 17508 of 1986. Upon a consideration of section 4 and section 27 of the Haryana and U.P. (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1979 it has been held that the ceiling proceedings had been initiated on 8.1.1974 and were pending on the appointed date namely 14.9.1983 and therefore, in view of section 27 of the Act of 1979 its provisions would not have any bearing on the determination of surplus area. Section 27 of the Haryana and U.P (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1979 which is relevant is quoted herein below-- "27. Territorial extent of lawsThe provisions of section 4 shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Haryana or Uttar Pradesh shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day." 21. Perusal of this section, which is categorical, leaves no doubt that the Courts below have rightly held that the ceiling area was to be determined on the date of issuance of notice under section 10(2) of the Act, namely 8.1.1974, on which date, the village chak Salarpur was within the State of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, this land was rightly taken into consideration while determining the surplus area. 22. I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid view taken by the two Courts below. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is therefore repelled. 23. The next submission that the land of village Rohillapur has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, is also of no consequence. The question as regards payment of compensation appears to be pending consideration before the Apex Court and the same shall abide by the Judgment that may be passed in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State Government. 24. Moreover, it is clear from the narration of the facts in the earlier part of this judgment, that the ceiling proceedings in the year 2007 was not fresh ceiling proceedings. 24. Moreover, it is clear from the narration of the facts in the earlier part of this judgment, that the ceiling proceedings in the year 2007 was not fresh ceiling proceedings. These were the proceedings which should have been proceeded with, in pursuance of the order of remand dated 27.4.1997 passed by the High Court. The version of the State in the Counter Affidavit available on record is that since a new District was carved out from the Bulandshahar and Ghaziabad Districts and the records have received in the Court very late and escaped notice of the Court concerned. On the basis thereof, it has been contended that the proceedings against Horam Singh were never dropped and that it is these very proceedings which have culminated in the impugned orders. 25. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out, anything contrary to what has been stated above, which could lead to this Court to take view that fresh proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. The impugned orders have been passed in the proceedings which were initiated against their father, Horam Singh. 26. One last point remains for consideration and it is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land of village Salarpur have been acquired by the Union Government in the year 1951 and that the same was never in the possession of the petitioners. 27. The same could not have been taken into consideration while deciding the surplus area (the parties are at dispute on the same area). 28. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that village Salarpur and village Chak Salarpur are one and the same revenue village. Material has been filed before this Court to show that the land of village Salarpur was acquired by the Union Government in the year 1951 for some facility of the Indian Air Force. The issue as to whether these two villages namely Chak Salarpur and Salarpur are one and the same is a factual issue. I therefore, do not consider it appropriate to Rule on this issue in a writ petition, wherein disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated and also because this factual issue appears to have been raised by the petitioners for the first time in this writ petition. 29. Accordingly and in view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. 29. Accordingly and in view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition lacks force and is therefore dismissed.