AKBAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice u/Sec. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was issued to the petitioner. He filed a detailed objection. In support of his objection, he produced oral and documentary evidence. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31st March, 1976, rejected the petitioner's objection and declared 6.084 acres of land as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal u/Sec. 13 of the Act before the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The District Judge dismissed the appeal summarily under Order 41, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the District Judge dismissed the petitioner's appeal summarily without considering the evidence. I find considerable force in the contention. The District Judge dismissed the appeal summarily in the following words : <DJG>"Heard the learned counsel of the appellant on the point of admission and went through the record and the judgment of the court below. The judgment is detailed one and there appears nothing wrong in the judgment. The document relied upon appears to be fictitious. The appeal is not at all fit for admission for being heard on merit. It is therefore rejected under Order 41 rule 11 (a) of the CPC."</DJG>

(3.) IN the instant case the learned District Judge has not set out any reasons for repelling the petitioner's contention raised in the memorandum of appeal. The only reason mentioned in the order is that the order of the Prescribed Authority was a detailed judgment and there was nothing wrong in the judgment. This is a curious reasoning, in fact this is no reason at all. The learned District Judge further observed that the document relied on appears to be fictitious. On what basis this observation was made is not clear. While exercising the powers under Order 41, rule 11 the District Judge failed to appreciate that he was dealing with the fundamental right of property of a citizen. He was depriving the petitioner of his property by dismissing his apeal summarily in a cryptic manner. The courts dealing with the property rights of citizens are expected to exercise their jurisdiction with care. The District Judge in the instant case dismissed the petitioner's appeal in a cavalier manner without applying his mind to the questions raised in the appeal.