STATE OF U P Vs. HAUSHALA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Goswami, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh who has appeared for the contesting respondent. The Court notes that an application for impleadment had been made on behalf of one Rama Shankar Singh who is stated to be the vendee in a sale deed dated 03 February 1983 executed by the respondent here. When the matter has been taken up, none has appeared to press that application. The application for impleadment is consequently rejected. The Court notes that even otherwise no prejudice as such stands caused to the applicant since as would appear from the subsequent paragraphs of this decision both the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have recognised the bona fides underlying the sale transaction in question and on the basis thereof had upheld the exclusion of the area comprised in the sale deed dated 03 February 1983 while computing the land held by the respondent in excess of the ceiling limit.

(2.) The State has petitioned this Court challenging the orders dated 21 December 2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority as affirmed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal in terms of its judgment dated 29 July 2002. Additionally, challenge is laid to the order of 18 October 2002 in terms of which the Additional Commissioner, purportedly exercising powers of review, has recalled his earlier judgment of 29 July 2002 and also brought to a closure all proceedings which had been initiated against the respondent tenure holder under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. Sri Goswami, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has, however, in the course of his submissions stated that the challenge in the instant petition stands confined to the order of 18 October 2002 passed on the review petition as preferred by the respondent. It is in the above backdrop that the petition was set down for hearing. The facts in brief which may be noticed and would be relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows.

(3.) The respondent tenure holder was put to notice in terms of Section 10(2) of the Act on 12 March 1993 by the State with respect to a proposed adjudication being undertaken in respect of surplus land held by him. Pursuant to that notice the respondent tenure holder submitted a reply which was ultimately considered on merits and the surplus land computed by the Prescribed Authority by an order of 21 December 2000. While passing that order the Prescribed Authority upheld the bona fides of the transaction as embodied in the sale deed of 03 February 1983 and consequently proceeded to grant benefit of Section 5(6) of the Act to the tenure holder. Dealing with the nature of the land, the Prescribed Authority referring to the revenue records of 1378 and 1399 Faslis proceeded to record that the land was irrigated and its soil was capable of bearing two crops. On the strength of these findings it proceeded to compute the land which was liable to be recognised as being held by the landholder in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed. This decision of the Prescribed Authority was assailed by the landholder as well as the State. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 29 July 2002. The landholder however appears to have filed an application for review of this order on 02 August 2002. It is not disputed before this Court that the application was purportedly filed under Section 151 CPC. This application has been allowed by the Appellate Authority in terms of its order of 18 October 2002. Ruling on the question of whether a power to review vested in it, the Appellate Authority takes resort to Section 151 CPC to hold that a quasi-judicial authority must be recognised to have an inherent power to review and correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The Appellate Authority in terms of the order impugned has ultimately proceeded to hold that the majority of the land holding of the respondent was liable to be viewed as unirrigated and had only borne a single crop. It has, on the basis of these findings, come to hold that the proceedings initiated against the landholder were liable to be dropped. The Appellate Authority in terms of the operative directions framed has brought the proceedings initiated under the Act to a close.