GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated November 28, 1973 of the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and that dated May 13, 1975 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr on appeal therefrom.

(2.) THREE objections were raised by the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The first objection was that the statement prepared by the lekhpal was not correct, and was against the papers as well as against the facts and circumstances. This objection was of a general nature. The second objection was that plot No. 318 and 319 measuring 1 bigha 8 biswas and 10 biswansis was 'abadi' land and that plot No. V4 measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa was unirrigated. The third objection was that the land measuring 19 bighas 16 biswas and 7 biswansis had been sold on September 13, 1971 in good faith and that it should be excluded from the consideration in determining the ceiling area of the surplus land with the petitioner.

(3.) WITH regard to the second part of the second objection, namely, that plot No. 94 was not irrigated land, my attention has been invited by learned counsel to the application made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit to show that the petitioner had stated on oath, before the Prescribed Authority that the plot was not irrigated. That may not be sufficient because the determination of the question whether certain land is irrigated or unirrigated has to be made by the Prescribed Authority on the considerations laid down under Section 4-A of the Act. It may be open to the Prescribed Authority to disbelieve the statement on oath but it would lead to greater satisfaction among those whose lands are declared surplus under the Ceiling Act if the objections raised by them are squarely met by the Prescribed Authorities under the Act rather than brushed aside on inadequate findings and reasons. Since the order of the Prescribed Authority has to be quashed in view of the error of law apparent there from in respect of the objection relating to plot Nos. 318 and 319, it would be expedient to quash the order as a whole and to allow the petitioner afresh opportunity of substantiating all his objections before the Prescribed Authority. In view of this consideration, I do not consider it expedient to make any observations on the merits of the last objection raised by the objector before the Prescribed Authority except for saying that on the material placed before me, it does not appear that the finding of the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge that the consideration for the transfer was inadequate is in any way, erroneous in law on the face of the record, but that should not prejudice the petitioner in leading fresh evidence on this point also before the Prescribed Authority.