RESHAM SINGH Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Arif for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The Prescribed Authority issued notices to the petitioner and the other tenure holders to file their objections. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he raised three objections namely that his adult sons should be granted an area of two hectares each on the basis of them having become major and that the sale-deed executed by the petitioner ought not to have been ignored by the prescribed authority and he should have been given a benefit thereof. Another objection raised by the petitioner was that certain land was in the shape of Abadi (human habitation) which could not have been treated as agricultural land for determining the ceiling area. In relation to the sale-deeds the petitioner appears to have contended that he required the money for the marriage of his children as sought to be explained by the petitioner in Para 18 (b) of the petition. The prescribed authority ignored the sale-deeds as they were executed after the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. The Prescribed Authority also did not grant exemption to the claim of the petitioner for his adult sons on the ground that no evidence had been adduced for the purpose of establishing that the sons were adult. The prescribed authority, however, granted an exemption for abadi land while deciding issue No. 5.

(2.) Three appeals were filed before the appellate authority. One by the petitioner and the two other appeals by the transferees. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed whereas the appeal filed by Darshan Singh and Bhupendra Singh was disposed of with a direction that their claim under Section 12(A)(d) of the 1960 Act shall be considered for offering an alternative land which had been declared surplus and to that extent the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority.

(3.) Since the objections filed by the petitioner had been rejected and the appeal had been dismissed in its entirety the petitioner filed this petition for quashing the impugned orders of the appellate authority as well as the prescribed authority. Supplementary affidavit was filed bringing on record the grounds of appeal and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State to which a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.