RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated November 28, 1978 in proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1960 hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act.

(2.) The prescribed authority gave a notice to the appellant under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. The appellant in reply to the notice submitted that the land occupied by the appellant was within the ceiling limit. The prescribed authority, Chail, Allahabad declared 13 bigha 7 biswas and 10 biswans is of land as surplus area. Aggrieved against the order of the prescribed authority, an appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, Allahabad. Learned Additional District Judge, initially dismissed the appeal but on a review petition held that only 2 bigha 13 biswa 10 biswans is in terms of irrigated land was surplus. The appellant aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the Additional District Judge filed a writ petition in the High Court. [he High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the Additional District Judge.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as early as on 17-8-68 Tehsildar, Chail, Allahabad had included the names of the six adult sons of the appellant as co-occupancy tenants in the khata of the land in dispute. The said order passed by the Tehsildar has been submitted as Annexure 'A' which shows that Sher Khan Ziladar on behalf of the State Government had consented in recording the names of the sons as co-occupancy tenants. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a suit for partition was filed in respect of the land in dispute and the Judicial Officer, Chail in case No. 5/1 under Section 49 of the U. P. Tenancy Act had passed a preliminary decree for partition on 5-12-1970. According to the said partition decree only an area of 15 bigha 15 biswas has came in the share of the appellant. The final decree for partition was also passed on 1-5-1971. It has thus been contended that the preliminary decree in the suit for partition was admittedly passed prior to the relevant date i.e. 24-1-1971. It was further contended that if the aforesaid documents are taken into consideration then the land in possession of the appellant admittedly comes within the ceilng limit and the Courts below were wrong in declaring any land as surplus.