Santosh Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition in question has been filed by the Petitioner quashing validity of the order dated 10.07.1990 passed by Prescribed Authority and order of its affirmance in Appeal dated 31.07.1991.

Brief background of the case is that notice u/s 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued against Asha Pal Singh father of Petitioner No. 1 to 3 and husband of Petitioner No. 4. Prescribed Authority declared 2.20 acres of land as surplus in term of irrigated land. Petitioners have stated that qua the said surplus land, State has taken possession. Petitioners have stated that thereafter fresh proceedings were undertaken u/s under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, proposing 16.63 acres of land as surplus . Prescribed Authority on 10.01.1977 declared 11.75 acres of land as surplus in term of irrigated land. Against the same Appeal was preferred and said Appeal was allowed declaring 7.51 acres of land as surplus. At this stage Civil Misc. Writ Petition 2528 of 1977 was filed before this Court and this Court interfered with the matter and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in reference to grove and irrigated land. Additional District Judge on 12.12.1979 remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority to decide the case afresh. Prescribed Authority made spot inspection on 20.06.1984 and placed it on record. Petitioner filed his objection on 26.07.1984. Prescribed Authority on 28.02.1986 declared 11.56 acres of land in term of irrigated land as surplus. Petitioners preferred appeal against the same and the said appeal in question was allowed and matter was again remanded back for re deciding after taking into consideration the objection of the Petitioner. Petitioner filed Review application and Additional Commissioner on 25.04.1988 allowed the said Review application and modified its order clarifying that surplus land could not exceed 7.51 acres as determined earlier. Petitioners have stated that consolidation restarted in all the villages and same was finalised qua 7 villages, except village Amiliha-Pal Teshil Khaga. Petitioner on 08.07.1990 filed objection relating to land reduced in consolidation. Prescribed Authority on 10.07.1990 maintained earlier order and declared 7.51 acres of land in term of irrigated land as surplus. Petitioners preferred Appeal and said appeal in question has been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.

Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri. Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 10.07.1990 and affirmed in 31.07.1991 in Appeal on the ground that in respect of plots situated in Village Gauspur, requisite exercise as is envisaged u/s 4A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 has not been undertaken and objection filed on behalf of Petitioners has not at all been adverted to as such said order is bad. Coupled with this once in consolidation operation area has been reduced, as such area in question was liable to be adjusted. In this background both the orders are liable to be quashed and fresh exercise is desirable to be undertaken.

Countering the said submission, learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter after making spot inspection, as such in the facts of case no interference should not be made.

First issue raised by Petitioner in regard to opinion which has been formed while proceedings to deal with the issue of irrigated land, is being adverted to. For the said purpose, provision as contained under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 are being looked into.

The term ''irrigated land'' has been defined in Section 3(11) of the Act, means land determined as such in the manner laid down in Section 4A''

In view of the definition of the term ''irrigated land'' contained in Section 3(11) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority has to act in accordance with the procedure contained in Section 4A of the Act in order to determine "irrigated land". Prescribed Authority is to adopt procedure consistent with the provisions of Section 4A of the Act in order to find out '' irrigated land''.

The relevant part of the Section 4A reads as follows;

4-A. Determination of irrigated land.--The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the yeas 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary, and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion

Firstly, (a) that irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years; by-(i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579/W/XXIII-62-W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or

(ii) any lift irrigation canal; or

(iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and

(b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years; or

Secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice u/s 10; or

Thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and

(b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year; then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act.

A perusal of the above provision would go to show that Section 4A makes it obligatory on the Prescribed Authority to examine Khasras for the 1378, 1379 and 1380 Faslis and further obligates the Prescribed Authority also to examine the latest village map and to examine such other records as it may consider necessary and also to make local inspection, if that be necessary. The section then proceeds to say that thereafter, if the Prescribed Authority be of the opinion as mentioned in Sub-sections firstly, Secondly and thirdly, he shall determine the land to be ''irrigated land''. The word ''thereupon'' occurring in Section 4A of the Act, is meaningful. According to Webster''s New International Dictionary, the word ''thereupon'' means "as a result of some specified things". Reading the word ''thereupon'' occurring in Section 4A in that manner, the mandate contained in Section 4A appears to be that the opinion specified in Sub-sections firstly, secondly and thirdly of Section 4-A has to be formed by the Prescribed Authority upon the Khasra for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 faslis, upon the village map, upon such other records as it may consider necessary and upon local inspection, if the Prescribed Authority considers it necessary to make one. There are no words in Section 4-A to justify any thing other than that specified therein to be made use of by the Prescribed Authority for the formation of opinion on the points specified in Sub-sections firstly, secondly and thirdly, thereof. The legislature thought it fit to confine the scope of enquiry to the examination of documents and local inspection presumably because almost every thing that is mentioned in various Sub-sections of Section 4A was capable of being ascertained on the basis thereof and, indeed, where any fact can be ascertained on the basis of documents, oral evidence can serve no useful purpose.

Said provisions have been subject matter of interpretation. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, has answered briefly referring to various Sub-sections of Section 4A held as follows:

In order to illustrate what we have said above, we may briefly refer to various Sub-sections of Section 4A. According to Sub-section, firstly of Section 4A the Prescribed Authority has to form an opinion (a) whether irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years by;

(i) any canal included in schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in the notification dated March, 31, 1953 as amended from time to time,

or (ii) any lift irrigation canal or (iii) any State Tubewell or a private irrigation work,

and, (b) whether that atleast two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years.

Now the information regarding source of irrigation as well as the information regarding crops grown in any plot in any year can be gathered from village record.

There may be some dispute about the existence of some private irrigation work, inasmuch as one party may confirm its existence and the other may deny it. To resolve that conflict the Prescribed Authority can himself make a local inspection which would reveal beyond any shadow of doubt whether or not any private irrigation work exists. It would thus, appear that no oral evidence is necessary for forming an opinion on what is stated in clause firstly of Section 4A.

According to clause secondly of Section 4A, the Prescribed Authority has to form an opinion whether irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding (Amendment) Act, 1972 and atleast two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice u/s 10. Now, the fact whether or not any irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the commencement of the Amending Act, 1972 is a fact which can best be established by documents. Similarly the fact whether or not two crops are grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of the issue of notice u/s 10 can also be conclusively established by documents particularly the khasra. For purposes of clause secondly also, therefore, oral evidence can hardly serve any purpose.

This takes us to clause thirdly of Section 4A. What the Prescribed Authority has to conclude thereunder is;

(a) Whether the land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal, of a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and

(b) Whether the class and composition of its soil is such that it can grow atleast two crops in an agricultural year.

It is worthy of notice that the documents, which it is obligatory for the Prescribed Authority to examine u/s 4A, include the village map. It can be found out on an examination of the village map coupled with the khasra, whether or not a particular land is situated within the effective command area of any State or private irrigation work. Even if there remains any doubt after examining the khasras, the village map or such other records as may be available, the Prescribed Authority can himself visit the site and inspect it to himself find out whether the land in question does or does not fall within the command area of any State of private irrigation work. As for composition of soil that too is mentioned in village records. In any case, oral evidence regarding composition of soil can be must conflicting and, consequently, if in any particular case village records do not contain any information regarding composition of soil, that fact as well can be ascertained by local inspection.

It would thus appear that on all the points specified in the various Sub-sections of Section 4A the Prescribed Authority can form an opinion on the basis of records and local inspection. The legislature, therefore, thought it fit that the enquiry u/s 4A should remain confined to examination of records and local inspection and not to production and examination of oral evidence.

Issue of determination of irrigated land has again been subject matter of consideration in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1980 ALL. L.J. 518 and therein view has been taken that in order to consider the irrigated land under the above provision land must fall under one of the three clauses firstly, secondly and thirdly. In order to determine whether first clause applies or the second certain facts have to be found. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is being looked into.

Under the above provision in order to constitute irrigated land a land must fall under one of the three clauses firstly, secondly and thirdly. In order to determine whether first clause applies or the second certain facts have to be found. Clause firstly would be attracted when irrigation facility was available for any land i respect of any crop in any one of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 fasli and 1380 Fasli. This irrigation facility should be by any canal included in Schedule 1 of irrigation rates notified in the notification referred to under Sub-clause (i) of clause firstly or by any lift irrigation canal or any State tube-well or a private irrigation. Apart from the existence of this irrigation facility it is further necessary for the applicability of this clause that at least two crops should have been grown on such land in any of the years hereinbefore mentioned.

In order to determine the applicability of clause firstly the prescribed authority will be required to determine firstly whether any irrigation facility of the nature hereinbefore mentioned existed in respect of the land in any of the Fasli years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli and secondly whether at least two crops had been grown on such land in any of the said years. Unless a finding is recorded in respect of these facts it will not be possible for the prescribed authority to hold that a particular land is irrigated as contemplated under clause firstly. Similarly, certain facts are required to be found for the applicability of clauses secondly and thirdly. Neither the order of the prescribed authority, nor the judgment of the learned District Judge indicate the facts on the basis of which the land has been treated as irrigated. The order and judgment also do not indicate that the land was treated as irrigated on account of its falling under clause firstly, secondly or thirdly. Thus, the finding on the question of irrigated nature of the land has not been given in accordance with the provision of Section 4A. The finding on the question is, therefore, legally erroneous.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the Kallu v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1990 AWC 42 has held as follows:

On a reading of Section 4A, it may be seen that the Legislature has proscribed different kinds of tests on the basis of which the authorities have to determine whether a land is irrigated land or not for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder. The two broad tests are (1) availability of irrigation facilities and (2) the factum of raising or the capability of the soil for raising at least two crops in an agricultural year.

We may now examine the merits of the Appellant''s contentions. The statute has been enacted "to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh and certain other matters connected therewith." The preamble to the Act reads as under:

Whereas it is necessary in the interest of the community to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers and for other public purposes as best to subserve the ''common good''. And whereas a more equitable distribution of land is essential. And, therefore, it is expedient to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the aforementioned purposes.

The Act is thus apiece of social legislation for achieving the several objectives set out in the preamble. In order to give greater thrust to the objects underlying the Act, the Legislature has changed the basis for reckoning the ceiling area from that of ''fair quality land'' to that of "assured irrigation facilities" available to a land.

Coming now to the specific provisions of Section 4A dealt with by the High Court, it may be seen that in order to form an opinion whether irrigation facility was available for any land from one of the sources mentioned in Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) in respect of any crop in anyone of the aforesaid years viz., Faslis 1378 to 1380, the Prescribed Authority is enjoined to examine the Khasras for those three Fasli years, the village map, other relevant records considered necessary and also to make a local inspection whenever it is necessary. Hence there is no scope for contending that a Prescribed Authority may form his opinion without reference to relevant material, in an arbitrary or capricious manner, to the detriment of a tenure holder as regards the availability of assured irrigation facility to a land from one of the enumerated sources. Consequently, there is no merit in the first contention of the Appellant that in addition to the materials and records set out in the sub-clause, there must be independent evidence of assured irrigation facility before ever a Prescribed Authority can form an opinion about a land having assured irrigation facility.

As regards the second contention relating to sub-Clause(b), the clause refers only to the growing of at least two crops in a land found to be having assured irrigation facility in anyone of the relevant years. The sub-clause does not contemplate the raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land. The classification has to be made with reference to the potentiality of the land to yield two crops in one Fasli year and not on the basis of the actual raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land. Therefore, sub-clause (b) cannot be read so as to mean that two crops should have been grown on the entire extent of a land having irrigation facility for classifying the land as ''irrigated land'' as it would have the effect of limiting the operation of the sub-clause contrary to the legislative intent. The High Court has taken the view that when the Legislature made amendments to the Act, it must have had in mind the advancement that has been made in agricultural science and farm technology and by reason of it a tenure holder can overcome hurdles and raise two crops in a year over the entire extent of a land having irrigation facility. We need not go as far as that. The normal presumption, in the absence of contra-material, would be that the quality and content of soil of a land would be uniform throughout its extent. Such being the case, if a tenure holder is able to raise two crops in a year in a portion of the land, then it would be logical to hold that the other portions of the land also would have the capacity to yield two crops if the tenure holder had utilised the entire extent to raise two crops instead of utilising a portion of the land alone. The raising of two crops even on a portion of the land will prove, in the absence of material to show poor quality of soil in portions of the land due to salinity etc., the uniform nature and content of the soil of the entire land. The High Court was therefore right in holding that the Prescribed Authority can treat a land, having assured irrigation facility, as ''irrigated land'' if the tenure holder had raised two crops even in a portion of the land during anyone of the prescribed years and that it is not necessary that the raising of the two crops should have been made on the entire extent of the land in order to classify the land as ''irrigated land''.

This Court in the case of Chandra Bhan v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1995 ALL. CJ 644 while considering the question of land falling in third category of Section 4 of the Act took the view that in order to treat the land in the third category, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, that the land should be situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work and in respect of second condition no finding has been arrived at that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year and in the absence of any determination regarding nature of the land in accordance with Section 4A of the Act, the land could not be treated to be irrigated.

There are total three categories for determination of irrigated land and qua each one of three categories in addition to irrigation facilities which are mentioned an additional finding has to be recorded in respect of two crops. In respect of first criteria in addition to irrigation facilities being available as mentioned additional finding is also required to be recorded that at least two crops has been grown on the said land in any one of the aforesaid years. Qua second criteria provided for alongwith irrigation facilities which became available to any land by a State irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972, there is also requirement of additional finding in respect of the fact that at least two crops has been grown on such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice u/s 10. In the third category also finding as to whether land in question is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal of a State tube-well of a private irrigation work has to be recorded and in addition to the said finding and finding has to be given as to whether class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year, has also to be recorded. Finding on irrigation facility has to be accompanied with finding on two crops as per the criteria prescribed and in the absence of such finding determination cannot be approved of.

On the parameter as set out facts of the present case are being looked into. Copy of report find place at page No. 32 to 35 of the paper book wherein Prescribed Authority has made spot inspection on 20.06.1984, Petitioners thereafter filed detailed exhaustive objection to the same running from page 36 to 39 of the paper book. Prescribed Authority thereafter keeping in view the respective plots numbers of village Gaushpur has considered the issue as to whether, it can be treated irrigated or un irrigated land and decided the matter accordingly. Memo of Appeal has been filed as Annexure 13 to writ petition, wherein all the issues sought to be raised before this Court has been raised, but the Appellate Forum has not cared to examine the issues raised and has proceeded to mention that rightful determination has been done by Prescribed Authority. To make the provision of Appeal more meaningful and purposive, it would have been much more appropriate, it the issues raised were independently decided and answered by giving some brief reasons which could have been given impression that issues raised have been considered but had no substance. Passing of such order by Appellate forum cannot be approved of.

Next question as per Petitioner is that on account of consolidation operation land in question which has been declared surplus is liable to be made up-bat said issue has been ignored.

Issue when reduction in area has been brought about by consolidation proceedings in holding of tenure holders after June 8, 1973 has been subject matter of consideration and in the past said issue has been referred to Larger Bench.

Whether the reduction in area brought about the consolidation proceedings in the holding of a tenure-holder after June 8, 1973 can be taken into account while determining the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date?

Said issue has been answered by Division Bench in the case of Satya Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and it has been mentioned that proceedings under Consolidation of Holding Act are based upon system of valuation of land prescribed by that Act whereas proceedings under Ceiling Act are founded on area. Relevant paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are being extracted below:

This result is due to operation of law. The proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act are based upon the system of valuation of land prescribed by that Act. The proceedings under the Ceiling Act are founded on area. The system of valuation provided by the Consolidation of Holdings Act is not recognized by the Ceiling Act for determining the ceiling area as prescribed by the Ceiling Act. The method of calculation given in the Ceiling Act alone has to be followed.

The burden of the Ceiling Act is that after June 8, 1973 no tenure holder should continue to possess more than the ceiling area. u/s 29 of the Ceiling Act, there is a specific provision for adjustment of ceiling area in case the tenure-holder acquires some more land. It is implicit in the provision that if because of operation of law the tenure-holder''s holding gets reduced that also should be taken into account. The reduction must be one which is valid in law.

A finding or decision given, before Section 38B came into force on October 10, 1975 (the date of enforcement of U.P. Ordinance No. XXXI of 1975) are, for purposes of Ceiling Act, not final. They can be reopened and the question involved in it, retried. But, in a case where no retrial takes place, the finding or decision is binding. Further Section 38B implies that findings or decisions given in any proceeding in any Court, tribunal or authority will be binding upon the authorities under Ceiling Act, if they are given after October 10, 1975. This clearly leads to the conclusion that the decisions of the authorises under the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act are valid and are to be recognized in proceedings under the Ceiling Act, subject of course to the effect of Section 38B as explained above. In this view it is evident that Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act while determining the ceiling are of a tenure-holder cannot shut its eye or ignore the decisions given in proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

Learned Counsel invited our attention to a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Charan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . At the end of judgment an illustration with reference of Section 29 of the Ceiling Act was dealt with. But that has no bearing upon the position as obtaining in the present case. The Full Bench was concerned with the reverse case, namely, where consolidation proceedings commenced after the completion of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Here we are concerned with the problem of Ceiling Act proceedings commencing while consolidation proceedings are going on and before the completion of proceedings under the Ceiling Act, final orders had been passed under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This position is not dealt with in the aforesaid decision.

Said Division Bench judgment thereafter has been followed in the case Ramakant Rao v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1986 RJ 237 wherein view has been taken that if rights of a party are effected or altered during the pendency of the case subsequent events can be taken notice of and consequential pleas are allowed to be raised.

Again in the case of Mahesh Prasad Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1993 AWC 666, Division Bench judgment quoted above has again been followed and it has been held that authorities under the Ceiling Act cannot legally refuse to take notice of the decision rendered in consolidation proceedings and the proceedings by way of an appeal against an order of the Prescribed Authority are only in continuation of the initial order passed by the Prescribed Authority. In such a situation matter has been remanded back.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Thakur Deen v. District Judge, Banda and Ors. reported in 1996 (2) SCALE (SP) has taken the view that High Court was wrong in not taking into consideration the reduction in the area of the land made in the consolidation proceedings for the purpose of determination the ceiling area of the land under Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being extracted below:

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in not taking into consideration the reduction in the area of land made in the consolidation proceedings for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the case to the prescribed authority under the Ceiling Law to determine afresh the ceiling area of the Appellant reckoning his holdings as 90 Bighas and 4 Biswas as determined in the consolidation proceedings. There will be no order as cost.

This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3327 of 1998 Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 08.01.1996 once again considered the question in respect of entitlement of tenure holder for adjustment of area of his holding which stands reduced due to contribution of land for public purpose as well as due to allotment of land of higher valuation during consolidation operation. This Court after taking into account the view taken by Division Bench in the case of Satya Pal v. State (Supra) and in the case of Ramakant Rao (supra) proceeded to hold as follows:

However, as area stands reduced during consolidation operation the principle of law laid down in the decision of Satya Pal v. State (supra) and Rama Kant Rao v. State of U.P. (supra) is attracted and, therefore, the possession could be taken by State only to that extent by which the land held by him exceeded his ceiling limit. The Petitioner was entitled to get adjustment of area from land held to be surplus by which his holding stood reduced during consolidation operation. It was well within the power of Prescribed Authority to make necessary adjustment.

The object under Act is that a person should not hold land more than the ceiling limit applicable to him and any subsequent event by which the area of tenure holder stands reduced before actual taking over of possession of land declared surplus, the tenure-holder is entitled for adjustment as observed earlier. The reduction of area has been by operation of law which Petitioner could not avoid. Thus, his claim on that basis cannot be ignored while passing final orders for taking over possession. So far case in hand is concerned, it was not open for Prescribed Authority to have ignored the application of Petitioner moved on 12.2.87 and passed order dated 20.2.87 without expressing any opinion on its merit. The appellate authority, which considered it, misconstrued legal position while rejecting the application.

Proceedings under Consolidation of Holding Act as already mentioned above are based upon system of valuation of land prescribed by that Act whereas proceedings under Ceiling Act are founded on area. Once proceedings are under the Ceiling Act then it has to be covered subject to the condition of the restriction which had been imposed under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the tenure holder should be permitted to retain his holding in question in such a situation in proceedings under Ceiling Act it has to be seen that area in question which has been prescribed under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 does not increase in any manner whatsoever and similarly tenure holder cannot be put to disadvantageous situation on account of reduction of area made in consolidation proceedings.

Petitioners specific contention is that in the present case area of land on account of consolidation operation has determined under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 has been reduced. Law on the subject is clear that under the provision of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 the tenure holder should be permitted to retain his holding in question and tenure holder cannot be put to disadvantageous situation on account of reduction of area made in consolidation proceedings.

Petitioners have stated that till date surplus land as declared possession of the same has not been taken over, in such a situation and in this background as matter is being remanded to Appellate Authority the Petitioners shall give full details of the area which has been reduced in the consolidation operation and the said aspect of the matter be also dealt with in Appeal.

With the above direction present writ petition is allowed. Order dated 31.07.1991 passed by Appellate Forum is quashed and set aside. Appellate authority is directed to decide the Appeal, afresh, preferably within next three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

No order as to cost.