NOORULLAH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties. Ceiling proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were finalised against the petitioner and it was held that he did not possess any surplus land. Thereafter 4th notice was issued against the petitioner under Ceiling Act on 7.5.1977. The said notice was directly challenged through Writ Petition No. 1700 of 1977. Writ petition was allowed on 6.4.1979 and notice was quashed. Thereafter 5th notice was issued on 5.9.1983, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The said notice was issued under Section 29/30 of the Ceiling Act. Under the said provision if subsequently un-irrigated land becomes irrigated then fresh proceedings for determination of surplus area may be initiated. In the said notice it was mentioned that two plots, i.e., plot Nos. 150 and 653 had become subsequently irrigated. Petitioner filed objections. In the said objections firstly he contested the allegations of the notice and stated that the aforesaid two plots had not become irrigated. Apart from that petitioner also contended that after finalisation of earlier proceedings he had sold some property and his sons who were minor on 8.6.1973, had become major and some cases had also been decided in between him and other private persons resulting in reduction of area of his agricultural land. Before the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Tehsil Jansath district Muzaffar Nagar, the matter was registered as Case No. 72 of 1975, State v. Noorullah. The Prescribed Authority held that the aforesaid two plots had subsequently become irrigated. However, the other pleas raised by the petitioner were accepted by the Prescribed Authority. Under issue No. 2 Prescribed Authority held that a suit being Suit No. 78 of 1979 had been decided on 30.11.1979 and through the said decision it was declared that Smt. Rafiya Sultana was bhoomidhar of an area of 10 bigha, 10 biswa of plot No. 653 and the said declaration was given on the basis of a Will dated 16.9.1956. Smt. Rafiya Sultana was married daughter of the petitioner and she was having two sons. The Prescribed Authority therefore excluded the said land from the land held by the petitioner.

(2.) THE other contention raised by the petitioner was that two of his sons Mohd. Ammar and Mohd. Umair had purchased some property from a third person on 5.1.1971 and at that time they were minors hence in earlier ceiling proceedings against them the said land was clubbed with his land, however, as afterwards the two sons had become major hence the said land should not be clubbed with his land. THE said contention was also accepted by the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority held that in June, 1973, the ages of the two sons were 16 and 14 years respectively hence in 1975 and 1977 they became major.

(3.) AGAINST the order dated 5.4.1984, State filed Appeal No. 17 of 1985-86. In the appeal petitioner filed cross-objections. Cross-objections may be filed within 30 days from the date of service of appeal. Without recording any finding regarding date of service of notice of appeal cross-objections of the petitioner were dismissed as barred by time by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, through judgment and order dated 30.8.1986 (through which appeal was also allowed). Appellate court held that subsequent developments of majority of the son and decision of the Courts could not be taken into consideration. Ultimately appellate court held that as the Prescribed Authority had held that the aforesaid two plots were irrigated hence petitioner possessed 3 bigha, 19 biswas and 17 biswansies land as surplus land.