MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner was issued the usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the said Act. He filed objections. Inter alia, one of the objections was that among other plots, plot no. 22 of village Dari Khurd and plot no. 613 of village Murafa were wrongly treated as irrigated land. They were claimed to be unirrigated. The Prescribed Authority and the lower appellate court rejected the said contention of the petitioner. Hence, he has come up in the instant petition and the contention raised on his behalf by this learned counsel, Dr. Dwivedi, is that the expression 'irrigated land' is not a general term or expression but is in the nature of a term of art inasmuch as Section 4-A defines how the land is to be treated as irrigated land under the aforesaid Act. Counsel's contention is that the said section clearly lays down that two independent conditions must be satisfied before a piece of land can be treated as irrigated. Firstly, it has to be found that irrigation facility was available for such piece of land in respect of any crop in any one of the three Fasli years mentioned in the section, namely, 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli. Such irrigation facilities should be shown to be available from the sources which are enumerated in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 4-A. The second ingredient is that the Prescribed Authority should be of opinion that at least two crops were grown in such land in any of the aforesaid years. It is agreed between the counsel that the other paragraphs in Section 4-A can be left out for the purposes of deciding the present controversy. The Prescribed Authority in the instant case passed a very unsatisfactory order. He framed a general issue no. 4 dealing with all the plots which were claimed by the petitioner to be unirrigated and without discussing the nature of the entries in the relevant records and, in fact, without any discussion worthwhile, he decided the said issue. The lower appellate court in its order says ;-

(2.) IN respect of plot no. 613, the lower appellate court held it to be irrigated on the basis of the situation as it existed in 1382 F. and 1383 Fasli. But nothing has been said as to the state of things as existed in 1378, 1379 and 1380 Faslis. Whether any irrigation facility was available for the said plots in respect of any crop in any one of the three aforesaid years and whether at least two crops were grown in the said plots in any one of the aforesaid three years had to be found as a matter of fact. The learned Standing Counsel states that the khasra entries were not available in respect of the three said years probably on the ground that consolidation operations were going on. He has drawn my attention to rule 3 of the U. P. Imposition of Cei ling on Land Holding Rules, 1961. The said rule lays down as under ;-