MANI SHANKER Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER VINDHYACHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.O.K. Srivastava and Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Srivastava learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mohd. Shahanshah Khan and Sri V.K.Singh Somvanshi on behalf of legal heirs of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The above noted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 15.02.2008 passed by opposite party No.1, Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, in Appeal No. 290 of 2006 and 12.10.2006 passed by the opposite party No.2, Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue)/Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Mirzapur, in Case No. 01 of 2003, under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Petitioner's case is that on 04.01.1974, notices under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were issued against original petitioner, Mani Shanker (since died), stating that the plots mentioned in notice are unirrigated. Subsequently, a fresh notice was issued on 12.4.1976 to the petitioner stating that petitioner holds 113 bigha and 17 biswa of land, when he had surplus land of 70 bigha and 12 biswa. The original petitioner and opposite party No.6, Ram Kishore Pandey, filed an objection stating that Ram Kishore has purchased the land from petitioner on 12.6.1968 and as such the notice issued to the petitioner deserves to be dropped. The land held by respondent No.6 should be deducted from the holding of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed exemption on the basis of sale deed executed by him to third party and also on the basis of land being unirrigated. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 05.02.1977 declared 70 bigha and 12 biswa of land of the petitioner as surplus. Petitioner gave choice indicating that the land sold by him in 1968 may be taken as his choice. The objection made by opposite party No.6, Ram Kishore, was rejected as barred by time.

(2.) The order dated 05.02.1977 passed by Prescribed Authority was challenged in appeal before the District Judge, who allowed the same on 02.11.1982 and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority to decide it again, after affording opportunity of hearing and evidence to the parties. The Prescribed Authority, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, decided the case by the exparte order dated 31.01.1986. The petitioner moved a recall application praying for recall of the exparte order dated 31.01.1986 before the Prescribed Authority, which was rejected by him on 23.12.1991. The order dated 23.12.1991 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, by way of an appeal, but the same was rejected by the judgment and order dated 17.9.1992. The petitioner preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40424 of 1992 before this Court challenging the orders dated 31.01.1986 and 17.9.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Commissioner, respectively.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Prescribed Authority did not give any finding on the issue of land being irrigated or unirrigated under Section 4-A of the Act. The relevant Khasras 1378, 1379 and 1380 Faslis were not examined by the Prescribed Authority nor he made any local inspection. He did not give any land to the sons and daughters of the petitioner and included the land transferred to Brij Lal etc. on 22.7.1971 in the land of the petitioner by his judgment and order dated 12.10.2006.