SITAB SINGH PALLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 20-1-1992 and 26-6-1989 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut and respondent No. 3 Prescribed Authority Haridwar, respectively. Briefly stated the facts of the case, according to petitioners, are that Kishan Singh father of petitioner Sitab Singh inherited the holding from Smt. Mari and petitioner has equal share in ancestral property. No notice was issued to the petitioner and the ceiling proceeding took place only against Kishan Singh, father of petitioner late Sitab Singh. The petitioner Sitab Singh filed application U/S. 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'), Annexure No. 2 before the Prescribed Authority to set aside the order dated 15.1.76 passed by Prescribed Authority, stating that he has a share in the said holding and the ceiling area has been wrongly determined. It is further alleged in the petition that admittedly no notice has been issued to the petitioner which is mandatory under Rule-8 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules 1961 (in short 'the Rules') and as such the petitioner cannot be determined from his holding otherwise than in accordance with law as the petitioner is protected by second proviso to Article 31A(2) of the Constitution of India. The restoration/recall application filed by petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by impugned order dated 26-6-1989. The petitioner Sitab Singh preferred appeal before Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division Meerut which too was numbered as appeal No. 1/1989, which was dismissed by appellate authority vide order dated 20-1-1992. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the appellate authority has wrongly held that the restoration/recall application of petitioner is belated and the delay from 28-10-88 to 3-11-1988 has not been explained whereas the petitioner had explained the delay by filing affidavit which remained uncontroverted. The petitioner had raised objection before the Prescribed Authority that he has equal share in the holding in dispute and notice U/S. 8 of 'the Rules' was necessary. However, the Prescribed Authority has rejected the restoration/recall application on the ground that the case has finally been disposed of and now the plea cannot be taken that the petitioner had no knowledge of that proceeding. The stand taken by Prescribed Authority is erroneous and in absence of notice to petitioner entire proceedings for declaring surplus land were vitiated.

(2.) The respondent State filed counter affidavit and it is alleged in the counter affidavit that U/S. 10(2) of 'the Act' notice was issued to Kishan Singh in case No. 83 of 1975, which was served upon Kishan Singh on 21-9-75. The objection was filed by Kishan Singh on 4-10-1975 and it was alleged in the objection that the land is his holding and his family is Joint Hindu Family. The tenure holder had got examined Tilak Ram and Bhim Singh and the Prescribed Authority after considering all the facts of the case vide order dated 15-1-1976, declared 15-3-13 Bigha irrigated land as surplus land. Against that order appeal No. 52/76 was filed by the tenure holder and the appeal was dismissed by Civil Judge Roorkee vide order dated 21-6-76. Thereafter the State Government got possession over the surplus land on 27-9-1976 and the land has been allotted to landless labourers and the objection raised by Sitab Singh son of Kishan Singh after about twelve years is not tenable. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that the case has been decided on 21-6-1976 and the three members of Joint Hindu Family have been given benefit of six hectare land and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.