DIWAN SINGH Vs. CIVIL JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the Petitioner filed objections and opposed the notice. One of the objections, with which I am concerned in this petition, was that, barring an area of 4 Bighas which was irrigated, the entire land of village Therai included in his holding was unirrigated. The Prescribed Authority repelled the objection after holding that the entire land was irrigated. The finding was upheld in appeal by the Civil Judge, Agra. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority observed that in accordance with the Khasra extracts of the year 1380 F. 4 or 5 plots of village Therai were irrigated and concluded that the entire land held by the Petitioner in that village was irrigated. It is amazing that the Prescribed Authority has neither given the plot numbers nor indicated the nature of the entries in the Khasra extracts nor even disclosed the legal criteria applied by it in judging the 4 or 5 plots that it found to he irrigated. More amazing is the conclusion that the entire land of village Therai held by the Petitioner was irrigated. Even if it were found that 4 or 5 plots were irrigated, it would not follow that the remaining plots too are irrigated. The learned Civil Judge has done no better. He observed that Court "in Khasra extracts for the years 1377, 1378 and 1379 Faslis, major portion of the land was shown as irrigated by the Tube well and also crops were grown" and thereafter referred to the evidence of Lekhpal and concluded that the entire land of village Therai held by the Petitioner was irrigated. He has not specified the portion of the land that he found to be irrigated nor even indicated what the entries were. In any case the mere fact that a major portion of the land was irrigated it could not reasonably be concluded that the entire land was irrigated. It seems that both the authorities have dealt with the matter in a very perfunctory manner. They ought to have considered the relevant khasra extracts as also other relevant evidence, of course, excluding the oral evidence which is not admissible under Section 4 -A and then come to a finding one way or the other. Not only that they ought to have demonstrated it in their judgment so that it could be possible for this Court to judge if the matter had been decided properly. In the present form the finding of the authorities below, even though concurrent, cannot be sustained.