LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-84

SHIV RAM TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On October 04, 2010
SHIV RAM TEWARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,1960') were initiated against the present Petitioner under a notice issued after the enforcement of Act No. 18 of 1973 in view of amended Section 4A read with Section 29 of the Act, 1960. The Petitioner filed his objections to the notice so issued. The objections were considered and the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.7.1983 held that the Petitioner had 1.04 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the recorded tenure holder filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. The appeal was allowed under order of the appellate authority dated 18.12.1986 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to issue notice under Section 8 of the Act, 1960 to one Prem Narayan and to decide the matter afresh. Accordingly, notices were issued to Prem Narayan on 23.3.1987, to which he responded.

(2.) In the proceedings after remand the Prescribed Authority considered the objections raised on behalf of the Petitioner pertaining to plot No. 4 (total area 1.63 acre). According to the Petitioner the same was subject-matter of sale deed dated 5.8.1959, the authenticity whereof has been upheld by the ceiling appellate authority vide his order dated 27.8.1977 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 311 of 1976. Therefore, this land could not be included in the holding of the Petitioner. The second objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner was with regard to Gata No. 167 (total area 9.71 acres) being wrongly treated as irrigated.

(3.) So far as the first objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner is concerned, the same was granted and the Prescribed Authority held that in view of the order of the appellate authority dated 27.8.1977, passed in Appeal No. 311 of 1976, the sale transaction has been found to be bona fide. Accordingly, the land covered by the sale deed was directed to be excluded from the total land holding of the Petitioner.