DILIP SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of total holdings of the petitioners, 14.12 acres of land has been declared surplus under Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 vide order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 26.12.1979. The property owned by the father of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is ancestral property and at the time of vesting under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act it was recorded as proprietary land in the share of Sir and Khudkasht. Proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 by the Prescribed Authority on 8.6.1973. In this behalf notices were issued to the petitioner No. 1 to file statement of facts. After hearing the parties, prescribed authority found that the petitioner No. 1 was the sole tenure holder of the land as a result of which the land held in excess of the ceiling limit was required to vest in the State. Total land measuring 14.12 acres was found in excess of ceiling area. Objections which were taken by the petitioner no 1 before the Prescribed Authority that he was not sole owner of the property but was joint holder with petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. It was contended that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were born before 1st of July 1952 and they acquired their rights in the property at the time of their birth. They acquired this right to be joint holder of this land prior to vesting under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950 i.e. on 1st of July 1952. Specific stand was that the petitioner did not hold this land as a sole owner but was joint holder with his sons petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Other plea taken were that while determining the nature of the land error was committed by the respondents by-holding the land which was un-irrigated as irrigated land. Prescribed Authority formulated four issues. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 dealt with as to whether the petitioner No. 1 was the sole tenure holder of the land or as a joint holder with petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority was that during initiation of consolidation proceedings an application was filed by the petitioner before the consolidation officer seeking partition of the property. This application was moved on 20.10.1970 and the order was passed on 7.9.1971. By virtue of this order petitioner's property was partitioned and respective shares were assigned to the petitioners. While acknowledging that the partition had taken place the Prescribed Authority held that the effect of this partition would not give any benefit to the petitioner as the same has been done after the date prescribed under the Act of 1960 i.e. 24.1.1971. Any transfer made after the 24.1.1971 effecting distribution of shares in the land would not give any benefit for the purpose of determining ceiling of the land. It was held by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.3.1991 that the petitioner No. 1 was sole tenure holder of the property and held that he was holding the land in excess of the ceiling limit.

(2.) On an appeal being preferred against this order the appellate Court allowed the appeal partly vide order dated 8.4.1993. Appellate Court upheld the findings of the prescribed authority in respect of issue Nos. 1 and 2 which held that the petitioner No. 1 was sole tenure holder of the land after rejecting his plea that it was held in joint ownership with petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. On issue Nos. 3 and 4 the matter was remanded by the appellate Court to the Prescribed Authority for re-examining the nature of the land held by the petitioners. Prescribed Authority thereafter disposed of the matter in respect of issues No. 3 and 4. It again passed an order upholding its earlier direction. Against this an appeal was preferred and the appellate authority vide order dated 3.1.1995 dismissed the same. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.