RAM MILAN Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under Sections 10(2)/29-30 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was initiated against the petitioner by the respondents on 15.12.1975 as a result of which 4 Bigha 11 Biswa 11 Biswansi land was declared surplus. The case set out is that one Smt. Brijrani wife of Gajraj Prasad executed a registered will in favour of petitioner's son Sunil Kumar and bequeathed the entire movable and immovable property in his name. On the basis of this will, the name of Sunil Kumar was mutated in the revenue record after her death. Smt. Brijrani was an independent tenure holder as such she had right to bequeath the property under Section 169 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. A notice under Sections 10(2)/29-30 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in which 7.20 acre land in irrigated category was proposed to be declared as surplus. The petitioner filed objection and contested the notice by stating that the entire proceedings are void and without jurisdiction and barred by res judicata. After considering the objections of the petitioner, on 31.10.1998, the respondent No. 2 passed an order declaring 2.911 hectare land as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1. The appeal also stood dismissed, vide appellate Court's order dated 9.3.1999. Both the orders dated 31.10.1998 and 9.3.1999 are subject-matter for challenge before this" Court.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that notice does not comply with the requirement of Section 29/30 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

(3.) In order to understand the controversy involved in the present writ petition, it is necessary to note certain facts. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus on 15.12.1975 totaling 4 bighas 11 biswa 11 biswansi. The case set out against the petitioner through the notice is that the will executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of his son was intended to defeat the provisions of the Act. The stated position of the petitioner was that he owns the land in the plot No. 502 measuring 8.56 acres, the rest of the holding which has been mentioned in the notice are recorded in the name of other tenure holders, who are the necessary parties but they have not been given any notice. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the land, which stood transferred in the name of Sri Sunil Kumar by means of registered deed, has wrongly been included in the holding of the petitioner. The land, which is in possession of the petitioner, has wrongly been shown to be irrigated while actually plot No. 504 area 0.08 acre and plot No. 1076 are 0.034 acres land has been recorded as grove in C.H. Form 41 and the plot No. 1089 is recorded as unirrigated land in C.H. Form 41. It is further submitted that the holdings of the petitioner is single crop land and Ken canal has been shown to be the source of the irrigation. The facility of Ken canal is only provided for paddy crop as has been mentioned in the notification dated March 31, 1953 in Appendix-1.