SIBANARAYAN SINGH DEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The determination of ceiling in a ceiling surplus proceeding initiated suo motu by the Revenue Officer and confirmed by the appellate authority and further confirmed by the revisional authority is being assailed in this writ application.

(2.) Before the Revenue Officer the surplus holder raised objection on the ground that lands which are admittedly waterlogged cannot be consisered to be a Class I land. It was further objected to on the ground that the transfer made after 26-9-1970 in respect of 7.17 acres should not be taken into consideration as the transfer was really one in earlier point of time though the execution of deed was made after 26-9-1970. The landholder also objected to the draft statement on the ground that he may be allowed to exercise his option to select the land to be retained by him. The Revenue Officer rejected all these objections. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority also considered the findings of the Revenue Officer and rejecting the grounds urged in the appeal, affirmed the order of the Revenue Officer. The petitioner carried a further revision and the revisional authority having affirmed all the findings of the forums below dismissed the revision. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Murty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case, raised two contentions in assailing the orders of the revenue authorities. He first urged that the fact that the lands are described as waterlogged is sufficient to indicate that they could not be held to be Class I land and, therefore, the revenue authorities have committed an error in accepting those lands to be Class I Land. He further contended that the portion of the land being non-agricultural and being situated in an urban area as world appear from the certificate issued by the Notified Area Council annexed at Annexure 5, those lands could not have been included while determining the calling. Mr. Murty also urged that the lands measuring 1.02 acres being homestead should not have been included in the ceiling.