DEWAN DIGVIJAYA SINGH JUDEO Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY JALAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions, the Petitioners are aggrieved against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners directing the State to lead the evidence first. After the service of C.L.H. Form -3, the Petitioners filed objections claiming that the statement showing surplus land was incorrect. They also moved applications that as the State was claiming that the Petitioners were ostensible owners or that they were in cultivatory possession of certain land which was entered in the name of the transferees in respect of land over which mutation was made after Jan. 24, 1971, the burden lies on the State to prove the case first. The Prescribed Authority did not agree with this contention and rejected the applications.

(2.) THE writ petitions have been filed against these orders and the orders being interlocutory, the petitions are not maintainable. Even assuming that they are: maintainable, we are of the opinion that the burden to prove is on the tenure - holders who filed objections claiming that the statement in C.L.H. Form -3 showing surplus land is incorrect. In case the State claims that any land is held ostensibly by the tenure -holder -or he is in cultivatory possession, it will be for the State to establish the same. In case it fails, the Prescribed Authority may not be justified in declaring that land as surplus of the Petitioner but that will not be a ground for directing the State to lead the evidence first. In this view, we do not think that these are fit cases for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) WE accordingly dismiss the writ petitions with costs.