Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2148 (ALL)

NARENDRA PURI v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-09-12

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—The petitioner and Madho Giri were declared co-sharers as per the order dated 4.6.1971 of the Consolidation Officer. Initially a notice was issued only to the respondent No. 4 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and certain area from the holding of the respondent No. 4 was declared surplus on 30.6.1976, against which order the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal which was allowed in part and remanded on 14.3.1978. The petitioner who was employed in the Indian Army upon coming to know that the certain holding of the respondent No. 4 was declared surplus in which he was a co-sharer filed an appeal. The respondent No. 4 also filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. Both appeals were filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29.4.1985. However, the appeals of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were decided together and were dismissed on 18.8.1998 saying that the issue regarding notice not being served on the petitioner under Section 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) could have been raised at the very first instance before the Prescribed Authority. 2. The Appellate Court also observed that there was a possibility that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.6.1971 had been passed on the basis of a compromise for the purposes of defeating the objectives of the Act. Against the order passed in appeal, the petitioner filed a review application. The review application was also dismissed and it was held that the issue of notice which was raised at the appellate stage should have been raised in the first instance before the Prescribed Authority. 3. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and submits that, in fact, the issue regarding notice should have been raised before the Prescribed Authority and not before the Appellate Authority. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that when the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 4.6.1971 had held that the petitioner was a co-sharer with the respondent No. 4 he should also have been served with a notice. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that when the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 4.6.1971 had held that the petitioner was a co-sharer with the respondent No. 4 he should also have been served with a notice. This is what has also been held in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P., 1979 AWC 585 . The observations of the Appellate Authority regarding the order of the Consolidation Officer that it was passed on the basis of a compromise to defeat the objectives of the Ceiling Act could only have been replied to by the petitioner had he been put to notice. This having not been done, the petitioner had no occasion to explain about the order dated 4.6.1971 which was passed by the Consolidation Officer. Thus a notice under Rule 8 of the Rules to the petitioner was essential. In the absence of the notice the proceedings would be vitiated. As this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the Appellate Court, I quash the orders dated 18.8.1998 and 3.3.2003 passed by it and remand the matter back to the Appellate Court, which shall again pass orders on the appeal of the petitioner. The Appellate Court shall not be guided by any finding which it might have given in its orders dated 18.8.1998 and 3.3.2003 and shall allow the petitioner to make his submissions afresh. 5. The appeal shall be decided within a period of four months from today. For a period of five months status quo as of today shall be maintain. 6. Under such circumstances, the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 18.8.1998 and 3.3.2003 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Court which shall decide the appeal afresh in the light of what has been observed above. 7. The writ petition is allowed.