NATHOO SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following two points.

(2.) The first contention is that plot No. 230/2 measuring four bighas, has been wrongly held to be irrigated. It appears from the judgment of the Additional District Judge, acting as the appellate authority under the Act. that no Khasras were prepared for 1378F, 1379F, and 1380F due to consolidation operations. Rule 3 provides that in such cases, Khasras for earlier years could be examined by the prescribed authority. The Additional District Judge has held that the tenure-holder having tailed to produce the khasras for the preceding years, it should be presumed against him that the land was irrigated. This view is contrary to that taken by the Division Bench in Jaswant Singh Vs. State (1978 All WC 577) : (1979 All LJ 25) . According to their Lordships, it is for the prescribed authority to examine the Khasras entries for 1378F. to 1380F. if available and the latest village map, and it is also open to the Prescribed Authority to examine other records (which would include khasras for the preceding years) and to make a local inspection. The finding about irrigation has to be given on the basis of the evidence referred to in Sec. 4-A and it is for the Prescribed Authority to comply with the requirements of this section. The finding based on non-production of the relevant records cannot, therefore, be sustained.

(3.) The other point raised by learned counsel relates to a suit relating to this land filed by the petitioners brothers wife Smt. Khajan Kaur against the petitioner. That litigation is pending in the form of civil revision in the High Court. The petitioner wanted the proceedings in the instant case to be stayed pending decision of the revision by the High Court. His apprehension was that if the verdict of the High Court went against him, then he would be put to an irrevocable loss inasmuch as he would be losing the land in that litigation and also under the ceiling legislation. Apparently, thus, Smt. Khajan Kaur has not so far been successful against the petitioner. The petitioner also does not admit her claim. Thus, so far as the petitioner and the State are concerned, both are agreed that the petitioner is the sole tenure-holder. If Smt. Khajan Kaur so wished, it was open to her to have filed a claim in these very proceedings under Sec. 11 (2) of the Act. It has been held by a Full Bench in Ram Charan Vs. State (1978) All WC 677: (1979 All LJ 166) that Sec. 10 of the Civil P. C. cannot be invoked for stay of proceedings under this Act due to pendency of proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the instant case, the other litigation is pending not under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but in a Civil Court. The principle laid down by the Full Bench is, however, clearly attracted. The issue in the two cases is not the same. As laid down in paragraph 31 of the report "In Ceiling proceeding the main issue is the determination of the ceiling area and declaration of the rest of the land belonging to the tenure-holder as surplus land. In proceedings under the Consolidation Act no such question arises." The same observation could be made about the civil suit.