BALRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 2.6.1987 and 29.2.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in the proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 against the petitioner.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that Pala Singh had two sons, i.e., Bal Raj Singh, the petitioner, and Jog Raj Singh. It was on 19.2.1986 that a notice under Section 10 (2) was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an area measuring 5.77 acres out of his holding be not declared as surplus land. On receipt of the said notice, petitioner filed his objection against the said notice contending that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus as he was in possession of the land within his ceiling limit. It was also urged that the land owned by Jog Raj Singh was illegally shown as part of his holding which he got from Pala Singh through a Will dated 28.5.1979. same was liable to be excluded from his holding and the said notice was liable to be discharged. Jog Raj Singh also filed an application for his impleadment in the said proceedings before the prescribed authority which was allowed and he was also impleaded as a party in the said proceedings. Jog Raj Singh also filed his objection pleading that Will dated 28.5.1979 was executed by his father Pala Singh in his favour. Bal Raj Singh, the petitioner, had no concern with the land covered by the said Will. Pala Singh died on 9.10.1982 leaving behind the petitioner and Jog Raj Singh. Land in dispute was mutated in the names of his said two sons. Thereafter, Jog Raj Singh applied for mutation of his name exclusively in the revenue papers on the basis of the Will before the revenue court but his mutation application was dismissed. Jog Raj Singh, thereafter, filed a suit for declaration under Section 229B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the petitioner and others which was decreed on 28.2.1987 and his claim on the basis of the aforesaid Will was upheld by the revenue court. It was, therefore, contended that the ceiling proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority against Bal Raj Singh were misconceived and were liable to be dropped.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, as many as five issues were framed by the prescribed authority. Thereafter, the parties have produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases.