HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Mubin Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Vinay Bhushan, for State/respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for determination of surplus land under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Tehsil -Lakhimpur District -Khiri, where the matter was registered as case no. 129/19 State Vs. Harbansh Lal decided the matter on 28.09.1981. Earlier order had been passed by the prescribed authority on 28.08.1980. However, the said order was set aside in appeal and matter was remanded. Thereafter order dated 28.09.1981 was passed holding that petitioner possessed 6.772 acres surplus land. Against the said order Rent Appeal No. 22/1981 was filed. A.D.J./Civil Judge, Khiri dismissed the appeal on 08.03.1984, hence this writ petition.

(3.) THE dispute relates to the nature of agricultural land being irrigated or un -irrigated. Khasras of 1378 to 1380 Fasli, which are most important document to ascertain the nature of land as per section 4 -A of the ceiling Act were not prepared due to consolidation proceedings. Khasra Khatauni of 1386 Fasli and map prepared during consolidation were filed by the State showing two crops of Kharif and Rabi and also sugarcane crop having been grown in the land in dispute. It was also shown that land was irrigated from the tube well situate in plot no. 580 and 582. Accordingly it was held that petitioner's adjacent plot no. 589 was within command area of the tube well and connecting drain was existing on the spot as well as shown in the map. Plot no. 580 belonged to Hari Ram, brother of the tenure holder, it was installed in 1369 Fasli. Consolidation proceedings started in 1965 and concluded in 1979. Tube -well was also shown in C.H. Form 2A ( prepared at the start of consolidation). Tenure holder admitted that Sugarcane crop was grown in his land but only in 3 to 4 acres. Accordingly I do not find any error in the findings of Court below holding the land in dispute to be irrigated. The findings are perfectly in accordance with Section 4A of the Ceiling Act. According to the explanation 3 of said section where sugarcane crop is grown, it shall be deemed that two crops are grown. Under explanation 2 of the said section ownership and location of a private irrigation work shall not be relevant.