RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ( for self and for S. C. Mathur, J.) :-This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises from the notification dated 28-1-1975, made u/Sec. 14 (1) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (to be hereinafter referred as the Act), as amended from time to time, declaring plots Nos. 1002 and 1003 measuring 1.77 acres of village Chandrasa Kalan as the surplus land of Durga Prasad, opposite party No. 5.

(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be the bhumidhar of the plots, having purchased them from opposite party No. 5 by a sale-deed dated 3-11-1970. A copy of the sale-deed is on record. His name was mutated in the revenue records and during the consolidation operations he was recorded as the chief tenant of these plots, as it would appear from Annexure 2, the copy of the Khatauni for the year 1380-82 Fasli. When the petitioner learnt that the land was being treated as the surplus land of opposite party No. 5, he filed an objection under the then existing sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 14 of the Act, it being Annexure 3. THE objection could not be entertained by the time it came up for hearing, since Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 had deleted Sec. 14 (3) from the Act. On 28-10-1975, the Prescribed Authority, therefore, instead of disposing of the objection consigned the matter to record. THE petitioner, finding himself without any remedy, seeks the intervention of this court under Art. 226 mainly on the ground that the declaration of his land as surplus , land has unlawfully deprived him of his rights in the land which had been acquired by him as far back as the year 1970 and which were recognised during the consolidation proceedings, held under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) SEC. 9 of the Act enjoins a tenure holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area acquired by him to submit a statement in respect of his holdings. Sub-SECs. (1) and (2) provided for general notice to the tenure-holders and not for notice addressed to particular individuals, whereas SEC. 10 provides service of individual notice on them. The tenure-holder, to whom a statement has not been issued u/SEC. 10 (2) of the Act, is not entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared u/SEC. 10 (1) of the Act and issued to other persons u/SEC. 10 (2) of the Act. SEC. 11 (1) of the Act does not provide for the filing of objections and no objection can, therefore, be filed. U/SEC. 12 (2) of the Act, however, a tenure-holder, to whom a statement u/SEC. 10 (2) has not been issued, is entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared u/SEC. 10 (1) of the Act and issued to other person u/SEC. 10 (2) of the Act subject to the restrictions imposed by sub-SEC. (2) of SEC. 11. If upon an objection made by a tenure-holder, to whom a statement u/SEC. 10 (2) has been issued, a tenure-holder, to whom no statement is issued, is added a party by the Prescribed Authority u/Or. 1, Rule 10 CPC read with SEC. 37 of the Act, the latter tenure-holder can prefer a claim or objection. Similarly, if to a proceeding u/SEC. 11 (2) of the Act a tenure-holder, to whom a statement has not been issued, is added as a party by the Prescribed Authority, such tenure-holder can prefer a claim or objection u/SEC. 11 (2) of the Act. Subject to SEC. 13, an order of the Prescribed Authority is final and conclusive. Then there was SEC. 14 (3) which, prior to the Amendment Act, 1976, afforded an opportunity to any person claiming interest as tenure-holder or a lessee in possession of the surplus land to file objection within thirty days from the publication of the notification made under sub-SEC. (2). The failure to file an objection resulted in the extinction of interest though no such consequence was attached to the failure on the part of a person upon whom no notice had been served u/SEC. 10 (2) to have the order u/SEC. 11 (1) set aside and to make an objection u/SEC. 11 (2).