RAM BAHORI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of proceeding under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The judgment and orders impugned are dated 18.3.1997 passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, Annexure-8 to the writ petition and 23.7.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

(3.) The Petitioner's land measuring 16 bighas, 10 biswas, 5 dhoor was declared surplus and consequent thereon possession was taken by Respondent authorities on 26.12.1974. The Petitioner received another notice Under Section 29/30 of the Act dated 22.2.1993 from the Prescribed Authority, Karvi, District Banda, Under Section 10(2) of the Act for redetermination of surplus land. The Petitioner preferred an objection stating therein that the ceiling proceedings have already come to an end in the year 1974 and possession of surplus land has been taken over. Subsequent to the finality of the proceedings, neither the Petitioner has acquired any land nor it has become irrigated which may warrant redetermination. Copy of the objection is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority framed a number of issues. Issue No. 2 was whether the second proceedings are barred by principles of res judicata and issue No. 6 was whether second ceiling proceeding stands abated on account of advent of consolidation proceedings. Issue No. 3 was whether the land of tenure holder shown to be irrigated is correct or not and its consequences ? Issue No. 5 related to the question that subsequent to the land having been declared surplus in the year 1974, sale deed executed by the Petitioner is valid or not ? So far question of res judicata and proceedings having been abated was decided negatively and Petitioner has no grievance whatsoever. The ceiling proceedings cannot abate on account of consolidation proceedings. It has no effect whatsoever and question of res judicata will also not arise as the notice Under Sections 29/30 was not in respect of the land which was already declared surplus and possession was taken over. The entire controversy in the instant writ petition revolves round the question whether the land retained by the Petitioner is irrigated and records produced by Naib Tehsildar such as Khasra 1395 Fasli Mauja Malwara and Khatwara are shown to be irrigated by canals and tube-wells. This fact was also confirmed by Lekhpal Naresh Bahadur by his oral statement, an adverse interpretation was drawn against the Petitioner. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner II, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide Ceiling Appeal No. 18/14 of 95-96 which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.3.1997.