RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions challenging the judgment and orders passed in two civil appeals filed under Section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ceiling Act').

(2.) Both the appeals have been decided by a common Judgment and order by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. Therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Late Laxmi Shanker was father of the Ramesh Chandra petitioner of Writ Petition No. 47 of 2004 and grandfather of Rajeev Kumar Tewari and Sanjeey Kumar Tewari the petitioners of W. P. No. 48 of 2004. Notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act was issued against Late Laxmi Shanker who filed objections and the case in that respect was registered as 119-State v. Laxmi Shanker, which was decided by the Prescribed Authority holding that Laxmi Shanker tenure holder has no surplus land under the Ceiling Act. It is alleged that during his life-time he had executed a Will Deed in favour of his grandsons, namely, Rajeev Kumar Tewari and Sanjeev Kumar Tewari. After his death the Prescribed Authority again issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act to the son of the Late Laxmi Shanker, namely, Ramesh Chandra petitioner of W. P. No. 47 of 2004. A case was registered in that respect as Case No. 8 of 2002. The petitioner Ramesh Chandra filed his objections to the effect that he has no concern with the land which was the holding of his late father Laxmi Shanker as according to the Will Deed the same has been inherited by his sons, i.e., the grandsons of Late Laxmi Shanker who are in possession over the same. The Prescribed Authority framed 12 issues, in which Issue No. 1 was whether the petitioner Ramesh Chandra has surplus land? If yes, its effect. Issue No. 2 was in respect of the share of the petitioner Ramesh Chandra. Issue No. 3 was whether Laxmi Shanker had executed a Will in respect of his all movable and immovable property in favour of his grand sons Rajeev Kumar Tewari and Sanjeev Kumar Tewari the petitioners of W. P. No. 48 of 2004. Issue No. 4 was whether Rajeev Tewari and Sanjeev Tewari are adults? If so, its effect. Issue Nos. 5 to 12 were related to the nature of the land i.e., whether certain plots are grove land, the same are un-irrigated and whether one plot is a pond? An objection was raised by the petitioner Ramesh Chandra before the prescribed authority that the ceiling proceedings were held initially against his father under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act which were decided in his favour and it was held by the prescribed authority that his father was not having surplus land. The prescribed authority, on this, summoned the file relating to that case and held that some more plots were found later on and as the proceedings did not form res judicata, hence they can be adjudicated again and thus, the prescribed authority vide order dated 27.3.2003 declared 4.932 hectares surplus land in terms of irrigated treating Ramesh Chandra petitioner as tenure holder and Issue Nos. 2 and 4 were decided against the . tenure holder holding that the Will Deed was executed after the specified date i.e., 24.1.1971 and on that date both the grandsons of Late Laxmi Shanker were not born. Their dates of birth are mentioned as 5.9.1971 and 9.5.1975, respectively.