LAWS(ALL)-1978-7-56

PHOOLBASA Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

Decided On July 24, 1978
Phoolbasa Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order of the District Judge, Unnao disposing of an appeal under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. By this order dated 24.5.1975, Annexur3-5 to the writ petition, the learned District Judge has rejected "the various contentions raised on merits on behalf of the petitioner, but has remanded the appeal only for allowing the petitioner to exercise her opinion in respect of surplus land under section 12-A of the Act.

(2.) ALTHOUGH the writ petition is based on a number of grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that he cannot successfully assail the order on other grounds excepting one. The ground pressed before me is to the effect that certain plots were claimed by the petitioner to have the character of Usar. On the objection of the petitioner Sri Laxmi Kant Dwivedi was appointed as Commissioner for making a local inspection. He gave his report, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The learned District Judge has, however, rejected the report of the Commissioner only on the ground that it was inconsistent with the entries in Khasra for the years 1378, 13/9 and 1380 Fasli. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly urged that local investigation became necessary only because Khasra entries were disputed and the result of local investigation could not be ignored on the very basis that that same was contrary to the Khasra entries. The finding of the learned District Judge on this point is thus clearly unsustainable. Of course, if the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority had any doubts about' the correctness of the report of the Advocate-Commissioner it was open to them either to issue a fresh commission to some other Advocate or to make a local inspection themselves. It was, however, not open to them to reject the report of the Commissioner without any evidence to the contrary other than the Khasra entries the dispute as to the correctness of which the occasion for the appointment of the Commissioner.