MOHD. RAZA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 15 and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the khasara No. 53 was owned by Beni Madhav son of Jagannath Prasad Dubey, who executed a sale deed on 8/10/1971 in favour of the petitioner-Mohd. Raza in respect to the khasara No. 53 area 2/17/15 situated in Village-Hatwa, Tahsil- Dumeriyaganj, District-Basti now Siddharth Nagar. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed petitioner - Mohd. Raza came in possession of the aforementioned khasara No. 53 and the name was accordingly, recorded in khatauni of 1378 fasli-1380 fasli. The aforementioned Beni Madhav has expired later on and in his place the name of his three sons, namely, Harish Chandra, Girish Chandra and Krishna Chandra were recorded in the revenue records. The U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 had came into force w.e.f. 8/6/1973. Notice on C.L.H. Form No. 4 had been issued to all the three legal heirs of Beni Madhav to show cause as to why the statement prepared in C.L.H. 3-A, 3-B and 3-C should not be taken as correct. The legal heirs of deceased Beni Madhav filed their respecting objections before the prescribed authority and prescribed authority in the three cases registered against the three legal heirs of deceased Beni Madhav vide order dtd. 11/12/1974 declared 5.59 hectare land in irrigated terms as surplus and the plot which were declared surplus included khasara No. 53. The proceeding for taking the possession was started by the State, accordingly, petitioner came to know about the order dtd. 11/12/1974 declaring the khasara No. 53 surplus, filed an application dtd. 3/9/1979 case before the ceiling authority under Sec. 11 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act ") for recalling setting aside the order dtd. 11/12/1974. In the application it was mentioned by the petitioner that petitioner is recorded in the revenue records over khasara No. 53 but without notice and opportunity of hearing, khasara No. 53 has been declared as surplus treating the khasara No. 53 of the respondent Nos. 16 to 18 (legal heirs of Beni Madhav). Prescribed authority vide order dtd. 6/3/1982 rejected the case under Sec. 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act filed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 6/3/1982 by way of three appeals before District Judge, which were registered as Appeal Nos. 201982, 211982 and 221982. The aforementioned appeals were clubbed and decided together by the First Additional District Judge, Basti vide order dtd. 17/2/1984 whereby the appeals were allowed setting aside the order of prescribed authority dtd. 6/3/1982 and ordered that khasara No. 53 shall be excluded from the holding of respondent Nos. 16 to 18. Surplus land under the order of prescribed authority dtd. 11/12/1974 alleged to be allotted to respondent Nos. 5 to 15. Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 (allottees) filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12319 of 1984 before this Court against the appellate order dtd. 17/2/1984, which was allowed vide order dtd. 3/12/2002 and matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties including allottees. Due to the amendment in the ceiling act, the jurisdiction to decide the appeal was vested with Commissioner in place of District Judge, accordingly, the appeal in pursuance of the remand order passed by this Court was heard by respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti, who vide order dtd. 19/1/2012 dismissed all the three appeals filed by the petitioner, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 25/4/2012 entertained the matter, issued notice to respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 as well as directed all the respondents to filed counter affidavit.