A.KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, initiated against the petitioner, culminated in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.10.1985. Not being satisfied with the order so passed, three sets of appeal were filed. One by the father of the petitioners namely Vijendra Singh, other by Narpal Singh and one by Parwati Devi. All the three appeals have been decided under a common judgment dated 21.07.1993 impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) THIS writ petition is confined to the order passed on the appeal filed by the father of the petitioners, being Appeal No. 63/73/46/96/D-1985. From the order passed with reference to the aforesaid appeal, it is apparently clear that three points were pressed before the Appellate Authority i. e. (a) that the father of the petitioners was entitled to 3.62 acres of land being excluded from his land holding, as the aforesaid area was used as Abadi, Khalihan, Nali, Devi Sthan, Khad Ke Gaddhe. It was pointed out that during the consolidation operation the aforesaid area was excluded from the consolidation proceedings resulting in reduction in area of the father of the petitioners and therefore he is entitled to such deduction, (b) The father had two adult son, who were borne prior to the abolition of Zamindari and therefore they had 1/3 share in the property and (c) that Smt. Parwati Devi wife of Vijendra Singh had received 6.4 acres of land as 'Istridhan' and this land could not be clubbed with that of Vijendra Singh.

(3.) SO far as first two grounds are concerned, this Court may record that both the authorities have recorded a categorical finding that absolutely no evidence was led by the father of the petitioners to establish that the land, in respect whereof benefit of 3.62 acres was claimed because of user as Abadi, Khalihan, Nali, Devi Sthan, Khad Ke Gaddhe, was being so used on the relevant date i. e. 08th June, 1973. It has been recorded that absolutely no evidence has been led by the father of the petitioners to establish the said fact. It has further been recorded that the documents, which have been filed in respect of such land user, have all been prepared during the consolidation and therefore he is not entitled to the benefit so claimed.