KANHAIYA LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant challenged the order passed by learned Single Judge in SBCW Pet. No. 1926/1987 dated 18.3.97. In the writ petition, orders Annex. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 were under challenge. While orders Annex. 4 to 7 relate to determination of area of agriculture lands held by petitioner under ceiling law and determination of Surplus land in excess of ceiling area prescribed. It is not in dispute that Board of Revenue has passed the order on 4.8.80 and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner anywhere until filing of writ petition. The learned Judge opined that in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of those decisions in the garb of notice Annex. 8 dated 11.8.86 inasmuch as the challenge to those concluded orders passed in duly contested proceedings suffers from apparent laches which has not been explained by the petitioner.

(2.) ABOUT the notice Annex. 8 dated 11.8.86, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner challenged it only after one year of the said communication, hence delay of one year in the given case is gross delay.

(3.) THE Tehsildar vide Ex. 8 informed the petitioner that 1098 bighas and 10 biswas of land of Khasra No. 141 was taken possession by the State in the Ceiling Proceedings on 1.7.76. However, since the ceiling case was remanded by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.8.76, no further proceedings in pursuance thereof has been taken by entering the said land in the revenue records as State land. It has been stated that since the order of remand, almost 10 years have elapsed, the proceedings must have been culminated into final order, he was required to inform the Tehsildar within a week on receipt of that letter as to the fate of those proceedings and if he is not able to produce any order, respondent assuming that decision to have been made, land shall be entered in the name of State. This letter reflects the bonafide of the Revenue Authorities to act in furtherance to final determination made by the Ceiling Authorities in pursuance of order of remand dated 20.8.76 inasmuch as it clearly states that though possession was taken prior to order of remand, but with due regard to the pendency of Ceiling proceedings since August 1976, land has not been entered in the name of State. THE petitioner has nowhere stated in petition that this statement of fact stated in the impugned communication that possession was taken on 1.7.76 is incorrect. His assertion that he is in possession of the land, cannot be deemed to be an assertion that possession was never taken from him. Fact remains that Annex. 8 reflects intention of the Revenue Authorities to act in pursuance to the decision given in ceiling proceedings in accordance with law. THE petitioner instead of giving, information to the Tehsildar of the decision having been made in 1980 for property against assumption that possession was taken from him in 1976 has not informed by him that unless further proceedings are taken, no possession can be taken from him. We do not see what is reason for entertaining the apprehension that respondents will not act in accordance with law once they are apprised of the decision of Board of Revenue which finally crystalised the rights of petitioner as well as State in respect of area that petitioner could keep and that which was liable to vest in State on identification and taking possession of but to take recourse to petition that acquisition of ceiling land cannot take place without following the procedure in accordance with law.