NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. IVTH ADJ MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy with regard to ceiling limits to the Petitioner travelled up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 2880/1980. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.1980 remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for mathematical re-calculation of the ceiling limits of the present Petitioner with a direction that the Prescribed Authority shall recalculate the surplus area treating 1.89 hectares as equivalent to 4.6875 acres. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is being quoted herein below:

(2.) From the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparently that except for recalculation treating 1.89 hectares as equivalent to 4.6875 acres, neither any other issue was required to be examined nor could be agitated by the recorded tenure holder. The order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1980. The Prescribed Authority in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court redetermine the ceiling limits of the recorded tenure holder under order dated 1.10.1980 and it was declared that the Petitioner had 18 bighas, 15 biswas and 3 biswansis of land as surplus. This order of the Prescribed authority was subjected to challenge by way of appeal by recorded tenure holder being Appeal No. 15/1981. The appeal has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge by order dated 25.9.1985. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 1.10.1981 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.9.1985 has been challenged before this Court by means of this present writ petition.

(3.) The only ground raised in the present writ petition is that the Prescribed Authority had not redetermined the ceiling limits after calculating the same on the basis of the equivalence directed under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.11.1980 namely 1.89 hectares being equivalent to 4.6875 acres. Because of such pleading, the Petitioner was granted an interim order in 1985 and the Petitioner has continued in possession of the surplus land for a period of 25 years. Today when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court made a pointed out query to the counsel for the Petitioner to demonstrate as to whether any such plea was raised before the Appellate Authority, questioning the calculation done in the matter of determination of the surplus land holding possessed by the Petitioner in terms hectares, acres or biswas, as the case may be. Counsel for Petitioner submitted that no such plea was raised before the Appellate Authority. It is in this background that the Appellate Authority has not recorded any finding on the issue as to whether there has been any wrongful calculation of the surplus land area possessed by the Petitioner or not.