SHEO RAM SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JHANSI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Earlier ceiling proceedings were finalised in favour of the petitioner and through order dated 25.4.1977 passed by the appellate court/ ADJ Hamirpur in ceiling Appeal No. 691 of 1976, it was held that petitioner did not possess any surplus land. After more than 5 years second notice was issued to the petitioner under section 10(2) of U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

(2.) In the said notice, it was proposed to declare that petitioner possessed about 24 acres of land as surplus land. The said notice was issued on 26.8.1982. Matter was decided by the prescribed authority against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner through ceiling Appeal No. 73 of 1984. Civil Judge Hamirpur decided the appeal on 12.3.1985 copy of the said judgement is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Matter was remanded by the appellate court to the prescribed authority. After remand prescribed authority through order dated 27.1.1987 copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition held that petitioner did not possess any surplus land. In the said judgement it is mentioned that prescribed authority himself inspected the spot. Against order dated 27.1.1987, State filed appeal being appeal No. 63/50/3/86-87.

(3.) Additional Commissioner Jhansi division Jhansi allowed the appeal on 26.5.1988 and again remanded the matter to the prescribed authority after setting aside the order of prescribed authority dated 27.1.1987. Appellate court mentioned about the position prevailing in 1386 fasli regarding irrigated or unirrigated nature of land and the produce of the land. Khasra of the said year was also perused by the appellate court. It is also mentioned that there is a well in plot No. 546. Under Ceiling Act well has got no importance. Appellate court held that at the time of inspection no naksha nazri was prepared and no information was given to the State of the inspection. Matter was remanded for fresh inspection. Khasra of 1386 fasli or position of plot in 1386 fasli is wholly irrelevant, unless proceedings under section 29 and 30 read with section 4-A, secondly of Ceiling Act are initiated according to which if after 8.6.1973 (i.e almost conclusion of 380 fasli) any State irrigation work has come into existence then fresh ceiling proceedings may be initiated. In the judgement of the prescribed authority dated 27.1.1987 it is mentioned that fresh proceedings were initiated on fresh notice under section 10(2) dated 26.8.1982. The Supreme Court in D.N.Singh Versus Civil Judge AIR 1999 SC 2264 has held that the point already decided in the earlier ceiling proceedings can not be reopened. However nomenclature of notice is not decisive. The notice could be treated to be under section 29/ 30 of the Act.