MOHD YAMIN Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER E MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions arise out of the one and the same cause of action and have their origin in the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (in short the 'ceiling Act') declaring certain land as surplus with each one of the petitioners. It brooks no dispute that the petitioners are the co-sharers of Plot Nos. 643, 644, 685, 686 and 687 situate in village Sikanderpur Bhainswal Pergana Bhagwanpur District Shahranpur. The question that looms for consideration is whether the plots aforestated constitute 'grove land' as defined in Section 3 (8) of the Act. The matter was initially decided by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority in 1976 but this Court by means of a composite order dated 31. 8. 1978, quashed the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority and remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for re-determination of the surplus land in the light of the observations embodied in the said judgment. The 'grove land' as defined in Section 3 (8) of the Ceiling Act 'means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including guava, papaya, banana or vine plants planted therein before Jan. 24, 1977 in such numbers that they preclude or when the full grown will preclude land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose and the trees on such land constitute grove. After referring to the aforestated definition of the 'grove land', this Court in the said judgment and order dated 3l8. 1978 held as under : "thus the number of trees cannot be the sole index to the question whether a particular land is a grove land or not. One must also consider the age and development, kind and character of the trees and their impact, present and potential on the land. " After the remand, the Prescribed Authority again held vide order dated 8. 7. 83 that the plots aforestated were not grove land. The matter was taken to the appellate authority in three separate appeals. The Addl. Commissioner dismissed all the three appeals by a common order dated 30. 3. 1978. The relevant finding on the relevant question as recorded by the Addl. Commissioner is excepted below : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the appellate authority has failed to scan the relevant evidence on record. He urged that the finding that the plots in question are not 'grove land' is a finding arrived at mechanically without reckoning with the evidence on record, particularly Khasra entries. The learned counsel drew the attention of the court to extracts of Khasras 1377, 1378 and 1380 Fasli (Annexures 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition), wherein the plot Nos. 643, 644, 685 and 686 are recorded as grove in column No. 18 of the Khasra. While determining the question as to whether a particular plot of land is an irrigated land or not, the Prescribed Authority is enjoined with a duty to examine the Khasras for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli as would be evident from section 4- A of the Act. It is provided in Section 4 of the Act that 2, 1/2 hectares of 'grove land' would count as one Hectare of 'irrigated land'. Sections 4 and 4-A are, in my opinion, integral to each other and therefore, the Ceiling Authorities are enjoined with a duty to examine the entries in the Khasras for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli even for the purposes of determining the question as to whether a particular plot of land is a grove land' as definied in section 3 (8) of the Ceiling Act. A perusal of the appellate judgment would indicate that the appellate authority has arrived at the finding extracted herein before without application of mind and without analytical and critical examination of Commissioner's report and other evidence on record. The order of remand dated 31. 8. 1978 passed by this Court, does not appear to have been complied with at least by the appellate authority. In my opinion, therefore the matter is to be remitted again to the appellate Authority for decision afresh in the appeals after taking into consideration the Khasra extracts of the years 1377, 1378, and 1380 Fasli as also after analytically and critically examining the Commissioner's report and other evidence on record.