ROHINI RAMAN Vs. III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. The Petitioner was issued notice under Section 10(2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 26-4-1976, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was partly allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 17-11-1977 a true copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. A certified copy of the judgment is also on the record. Now the Petitioner has come in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Prakash Chandra learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.

(3.) Two contentions have been pressed before me by Sri Prakash Chandra. Firstly, he contended that some land which was found to be Abadi should not have been included in the holding of the Petitioner. In this connection the learned Counsel referred to the definition of land in Sec. 3(14) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. This definition of land is applicable for the ceiling law in view of Sec. 3(21) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It was contended that the land which has ceased to be used for agricultural purposes, no more remains as land in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the same is not liable to be included in the holding of the tenure older. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Justice R.M. Sahai, reported in Jhandoo Vs. State of U.P., 1977 AWC 318. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Justice R.C. Srivastava in Hitendra Singh Vs. III Additional District Judge (Writ petition No. 1154 of 1978 D/- 31-8-1979). In my view the said cases are distinguishable and this contention lacks merits. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate court have correctly stated that looking to the nature of the constructions, which were found to exist on the plots in question which were included in the holding of the Petitioner, it was not possible to give the benefit of any clause under Sec. 6 of the Act which enumerates different categories of land which are liable to be exempted from the holding of a tenure holder. In this connection a reference may be made to Tribeni Engineering Works Vs. State 1978 All WC (SOC) 33. The approach there which has been held to be applicable to a consideration of the ingredients of Sub-section 6(1)(a) should also be held to be applicable to Sec. 6(1)(b). in the instant case it is not disputed that the plots on which the constructions existed, are recorded in the name of he Petitioner as the tenure holder thereof. If a person is the Bhumidhar or the Sirdar of some plots, then the mere fact that certain constructions exist on such plot will not entitle the exemption of the land beneath such constructions unless it be found that Sec. 6(1) (b) is applicable and the constructions are in the nature of a residential house. Accordingly, this contention is rejected.