RAGHUBAR DAYAL DEAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Substitution allowed.

(2.) These three appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since they arise from the common judgment delivered by the High court of Allahabad in WP No. 3763 of 1979 and batch dated 4/7/1979. The facts in CA No. 3012 of 1979 are sufficient for disposal of the appeals. On 11/7/1956, the government had granted to the appellant certain parcels of land for settling down colonies thereon and to cultivate the land on improved methods of cultivation, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the grant made under the government Grants Act, 1895. Under Section 10 (2 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') , notice was issued on 20/10/1974 by the prescribed authority calling upon him to submit the return for determination of the ceiling area. The appellant's objections raised on 4/12/19755 were rejected by the prescribed authority by proceedings dated 28/2/1975 holding that the appellant held 94 bighas 16 biswas of surplus land and was called upon to surrender the same. The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the appellate authority and the Civil Judge by judgment dated 2/6/1976 dismissed the appeal. In the writ petitions, as stated earlier, the High court confirmed the orders of the authorities under the Act.

(3.) Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that when the grant was made under the government Grants Act, by operation of Section 2 and Section 3 thereof, the lands covered under the Grant Act stood excluded from the operation of the Act. The competent authority under the Act has, therefore, no jurisdiction or power to issue the notice and also determining the surplus land calling upon the appellant to surrender the excess land. Alternatively, it is contended that the appellant is required to file the return under Section 9. Section 6 (h) was deleted by Amendment Act on 14/1/1975. Therefore, the notice issued in October 1974 is without jurisdiction and a nullity. No fresh notice was issued to the appellant under Section 9 after the deletion of the exemption clause referred to therein. The computation of the surplus land is, therefore, illegal. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Malkhan Singh v. State of U. P.