KALAWATI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER GORAKHPUR DIVISISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a lady, has been compelled to approach this Court again for the restoration of her rights and possession over new plot no. 408 (Old Plot No. 438) area 4.48 acres situate in village Padya Mustkin, Tappa Doma Khand, Pargana Tilpur, Tehsil Nichlaul, District Maharajganj in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. THE petitioner filed objections under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. Her objections have been allowed on 1.9.2008 and a further order has been passed by the prescribed authority on 30.12.2008 for restoring her status as tenure holder and restituting her possession. THE respondent State and the contesting respondent allottees of the surplus land filed four appeals that have been dismissed. However while dismissing the appeal the learned Commissioner who is the appellate authority has made observation adverse to the petitioner for restoring her possession and restituting the land. It is this part of the order of the appellate authority which is assailed in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner in short contends that she had already acquired rights over the land in question long before the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971 under the 1960 Act, and the same was wrongly included as land surplus in the hands of one Radha Krishna Khaitan and Durga Prasad Khaitan. Radha Krishna Khaitan was subsequently survived by his heir Jagdamba Prasad Khaitan. Proceedings under the Ceiling Act took place against them and Old Plot No. 438 to the extent of the area indicated, came to be declared surplus. THE said land was treated as having vested in the State after having declared surplus under the orders dated 12.7.1994, 1.12.1994, 18.2.1995 and 18.3.1996. THE land came to be processed for allotment thereafter and was accordingly allotted to the respondents 6 to 15.

(3.) AFTER the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 1.9.2008 and 30.12.2008, the petitioner filed a writ petition praying that her claim has been accepted by the Prescribed Authority and that her name has also been mutated in the revenue records but actual physical possession was not being restored inspite of an order passed on 18.4.2009 by the Prescribed Authority. The writ petition was entertained and an interim mandamus was issued on 14.5.2009, in response whereto the State and the respondents no. 6 to 15 who are allottees appeared and informed the court that four appeals had been filed as referred to herinabove and pending appeal, the petition be not entertained. The said writ petition No. 25249 of 2009 was finally disposed of on 22nd July, 2009 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals including the issue relating to the maintainability thereof. It is thereafter that the impugned order has been passed on 15.12.2010 dismissing the appeals.