SMT. BAIKUNTHA Vs. CIVIL JUDGE (II) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the orders dated 21 -1 -1981 passed by Civil Judge II Azamgarh and the order dated 28.8.1980 passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts which have given rise to this petition are briefly put as below. Durga Prasad Singh husband of the petitioner Baikuntha received notice under Section 10(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act alongwith the statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Act. He filed objections on 20th April, 1974 raising number of objections. The learned Prescribed Authority thereupon framed issues on the basis of the objections. He moved an application on 4.2.1980 seeking permission to add two more objections to his original written objections. This application was allowed by the prescribed authority on 22nd February 1980. It so appears that thereafter the prescribed authority framed two additional issues Nos. 5 & 6 and the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned prescribed authority by his order dated 28.8.1980 declared 11.849 acres as surplus land. Durga Prasad then went in appeal and the learned Civil Judge (II) by his order dated 21.1.1981 who partly allowed the appeal declaring only 10.063 acres as surplus land.

(2.) THE main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that the prescribed authority has decided the matter only on the findings arrived at by him on two additional issues without giving any finding whatsoever on the original four issues which were framed by him on the objections of Durga Prasad Singh. Sri Pratap Narain Advocate Azamgarh has filed an affidavit and deposed by his personal knowledge that it was pressed before the Civil Judge that the prescribed authority has decided the matter only on the basis of his findings on two additional is Sues without giving any finding on the original four issues which were framed by him. The learned counsel for the State does not challenge the fact that the prescribed authority has decided the case only on the basis of his finding on the two additional issues Nos. 5 and 6 without giving any finding on the four original issues, Section 37 of the Act provides that any officer or authority holding an enquiry or hearing an objection under this Act, shall in so far as it may be applicable, have all the powers and privileges of a civil court, and follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the trial and disposal of suits relating to immovable property. The learned prescribed authority rightly framed four issues on the basis of the objections which were raised by the tenure holder Sri Durga Prasad. He again rightly framed two additional issues on the basis of the two additional objections which were raised by the tenure holder but grievously erred in deciding the matter only on the basis of his findings on the two additional issues without giving any finding on the original four issues which were framed by him. The prescribed authority was required to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial and disposal of suits relating to immovable property and it was mandatory for him to give his findings and all the issues which were framed by him on the objections of tenure holder, order 14, rule 2(1) of Code of Civil Procedure provides that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall..........pronounce judgment on all issues "Non compliance of the mandatory provisions of order 14 rule 2(1) C.P.C. vitiates the enquiry and hearing of the objections by the learned prescribed authority. The writ petition shall therefore be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the prescribed authority and Civil Judge, Azamgarh are hereby quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to rehear all the objections raised by the petitioner and decide the case after giving his findings on all the six issues framed by him.