MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenged the appellate order in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Two points are incontraversy. One is whether plot Nos. 87 and 175 were grove land, and as such the petitioner was entitled to a larger area within his ceiling limit. THE second is as to whether plot No. 44 was irrigated land. THE Prescibed Authority found that trees existed on the land but also recorded as a finding that the land was being cultivated. Section 3 (8) of the Act defined grove land for the purposes of the Act as under:- "Grove land means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including (guava, papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before January 24, 1971, in such numbers that they preclude or when full grown will preclude the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove." Thus the mere fact that the land is being cultivated will not exclude the land from the category of the grove land. It has however, to satisfy the test that the trees were planted on the land before January 24, 1971, and when fully grown will preclude cultivation. In reaching the conclusion that these two plots did not fall within the category of grove land, the Prescribed Authority was impressed by the fact that the entry of grove was made for the first time in 1378F. Now the Fasli year extends from July 1 to June 30. This being so, the Fasli year of 1378 covered the period from July 1, 1970 to Junel 30, 1971. As there was an entry of grove in this year, the Prescribed Authority erred in drawing the conclusion from this entry alone that the trees had been planted after January 24, 1971. THE entry obviously covered the entire year and under the relevant law, survey of crops have to be made atleast twice in each year, one in Kharif season and the other in Rabi season. It does not appear as to when the entry of grove was made. If it was made in the Kharif Partal, it obviously indicated that the trees had been planted before January 24, 1971. Even so far as the Rabi Partal is concerned, that is generally done from the month of December onward. Even if the Partal relating to the entry for the Rabi season was made in the winter season, the entry of 1378F. instead of being adverse to the petitioner's cause, supported his case. So far as the Appellate Authority is concerned, it did not consider this question at all. Thus, both the authorities below have committed a clear error of law in not deciding the question as to whether plot Nos. 87 and 175 were grove land as defined under the Act. So far as plot No. 44 is concerned, the finding is that it fell within the command area of a canal. In a portion of this plot i.e. 8.43 acres paddy crop was sown in 1378F. while in another portion 2.80 acres Chari crop was sown. From this it was concluded that the land was capable of growing two crops. Irrigated land has been defined under Section 4-A of the Act, and before the land, which is situate within the command area of a canal can be classified as irrigated land, the Prescribed Authority has to record in finding that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing atleast two crops in an agricultural year. No such inquiry has been made by either of the two authorities. Thus, the conclusion that plot No. 44 is irrigated land does not appear to be sound. THE petition is accordingly allowed and the appellate order is quashed. THE matter is remanded for considering afresh in respect of these three plots in the light of the observations made in the judgment, and in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs.