GHASI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to the notice issued under S. 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner raised a number of objections. One of the objections was that Plot Nos. 1674, 1679, 1714 and 1717 of village Rajpur were not irrigated land.

(2.) THE prescribed Authority examined the revenue extracts and held that two crops appeared to have been grown on the plots in dispute. On the basis of oral statement of Naib-Tahsildar he held the land in dispute to be irrigated. THE Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the finding:- " I have gone through the copies of Khasras for the years 1378 to 1380 Fasli on the record. In the aforesaid plots the source of irrigation recorded is tube-well boring, well and tube-well. Further in the Khasras two crops have been recorded in the fields."

(3.) THE laudable objective of the Act is frustrated by the authorities empowered to implement these provisions in haste and hurry. THEy should not ignore for reaching consequences on a tenure-holder. THE proceedings are in nature of forcible acquisition. THEy have to be interpreted strictly and implemented carefully. THE manner in which this case has been decided not only increases litigation and multiplies arrears but defeats the purpose due to delay.