SHITAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises from an order dated November 23, 1974 of the Prescribed Authority Koil, District Aligarh, and that dated July 30, 1975 of the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, on appeal therefrom under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Three points were urged before the learned Additional Civil Judge. The first point related to a sale deed dated October 27, 1971 in respect of 9 bighas of land out of plot No. 262 sold by the petitioner to Smt. Veervati and others for a consideration of Rs. 8,000 only. The next point related to plot No. 262 in respect of which it was contended that it was unirrigated but had wrongly been taken to be irrigated. The last point related to Plot No. 104 which was said to be a grove.

(2.) MR. B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the order of the Prescribed Authority was bad for it contained no reasons for the findings recorded by him and that the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge was no better.

(3.) WITH regard to the last point about plot No. 104 being a grove, all that the Prescribed Authority has observed in this connection is that there is no documentary evidence that there was grove in this plot in the relevant years. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that there was a grove in an area of one bigha of land of the said plot and held the petitioner entiled to relief accordingly but added that the difference was so minor that the whole appeal merited dismissal. It is clear that the Prescribed Authority refused to look into the relevant khasras for verifying whether there was grove on any part of Plot No. 104, for, the finding of the learned Additional Civil Judge that there was grove on one bigha out of this plot is based on a perusal of the khasras for 1377, 1378 and 1380 fasli. This kind of an attitude of turning a blind eye to the objections of citizens filed before the Prescribed Authorities in proceedings under the Act is to be regretted. It is the duty of the Prescribed Authority to verify the correctness of the objections by reference to the revenue records, whether they are filed by an objector or not, for the statements prepared by them are supposed to have been prepared on the basis of revenue records and the other considerations prescribed under the Act, and must therefore be available with them.