SRI KRISHNA CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order made by the High Court in the writ petition is under challenge in this appeal. The controversy relates to certain lands in order to reckon whether they are irrigated or not for the purpose of determining the ceiling area under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ("the Act" for short). The prescribed authority took the view that the lands in question being covered by a canal, they were irrigated. In appeal filed by the present appellant, the Appellate Authority, on a detailed examination of the material placed before it and having due regard to the relevant provisions of the aforementioned Act, could not sustain the order passed by the prescribed authority. In that view, it set aside the order taking note of the factual position that the lands in question being at the tail end, there was acute shortage of water and that it was not shown that two crops were grown in those lands. The State was not happy with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and as such a writ petition was filed by the State challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. The High Court, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restoring the order of the prescribed authority. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant pointing out to the provisions contained u/s. 4-A of the Act, submitted that the High Court did not keep in view the mandatory requirements of Sec. 4-A of the Act before arriving at a conclusion whether the lands should be considered as irrigated or not. The learned counsel also contended that the High Court did not dispel the reasons recorded by the first appellate court.

(3.) The learned counsel representing the respondents fairly submitted that the mandatory requirements in determining whether the lands were irrigated or not, were not kept in view in disposing of the writ petition. He further submitted that the writ petition can be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in spite of several opportunities given to the respondents, they failed to produce khasra records for the relevant period and this being the position, there is no need to remand the case to the High Court.