STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on enforcement of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short "the Act", a notice under Section 10(2) or the Act was issued to Niddha S/o. Matai calling upon him to show cause as to why an area measuring 4.46 acres out of his holding be not declared as surplus. On receipt of the notice, Niddha filed his objection. It was pleaded that the land which was owned by Ram Brikahs was wrongly clubbed in his holding and the land which was on the spot grove, was not shown as grove. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on record declared an area of 4.46 acres as surplus by judgment and order dated 28.9.1977. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the contesting respondents. The said appeal was allowed by the appellate authority by its judgment and order dated 11.8.1978. Challenging the validity of the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 2614 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The said writ petition was allowed on 11.8.1978 and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for decision afresh. The Commissioner, on receipt of the papers of the case, heard the matter and allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 7.8.1997 and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority again declared an area of 4.4. acres as surplus by its judgment and order dated 18.5.1998. The contesting respondents again filed an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, which was dismissed by the appellate authority by judgment and order dated 23.7.1998. Thereafter the contesting respondents had to approach this Court and file a writ petition which was ultimately allowed and the case was again remanded to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority again declared an area measuring 4.46 acres as surplus. Challenging the validity of the said order, the contesting respondents again filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the parties reversed the findings recovered by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 12.1.2001. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) IT is evident from the report of the Stamp Reporter that the present petition has been filed after inordinate delay. The delay in filing the present petition has not been properly explained, the writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches. However, I do not propose to dismiss the same on that ground and decide the same on merits.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record. Family settlement/compromise was entered into between the parties on 29.1.1964 whereby an area of 4.46 acres out of the holding of Niddha was given to Ram Briksha who happened to be the son of the daughter of Niddha, the tenure holder. The said settlement was given effect to in the revenue papers and the name of Ram Briksha was mutated on the land in dispute as it is evident from the documentary evidence, particularly C.H. Form No. 45. Certified copy of C.H. Form No. 45 has been produced which is a public document. The Prescribed Authority committed an illegality in ignoring the said document as according to him it was not proved in accordance with law. It is well settled in law that a public document does not require formal proof. The said family settlement was entered into in 1964, i.e., much before the prescribed date, i.e., 24.1.1971, and the same was also acted upon, therefore, the same could not be ignored. The Commissioner has recorded findings on the question of possession and other relevant questions which were involved in the case in favour of contesting respondent and the said findings are based on the relevant evidence on record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the authorities below. The present petition is concluded by findings of fact. No case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out