Satyendra Mani Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Issue notice to the respondent nos. 4 and 9 returnable at an early date.

Sri D.K. Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 and the learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

All the respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter.

Connect and list along with Writ Petition No. 26440 of 2006 after the expiry of aforesaid period.

The petitioner claims that ceiling proceedings under the 1960 Act were finalized on 28.02.1995 and by virtue of the said judgment of the Prescribed Authority, the land, which has been shown in Schedule (Ka) thereof, has only been declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner. The balance land of Village Siswa Goitee is exclusively within the holding of the petitioner which he is entitled to retain. The authorities appear to have allotted the land of Siswa Goitee as well and the petitioner at that stage arrived before this Court complaining that the allotment was against the choice given by him. Writ Petition No. 2936 of 1996 was accordingly disposed of on 06.05.1996.

The allottees assailed the said order before the Apex Court on the ground that they had not been heard and the judgment had been delivered by the High Court ex-parte. The SLP Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 2003 were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for decision afresh.

The writ petition was finally allowed on 15.04.2004 remanding the matter back to the learned Commissioner to decide the issue relating to cancellation of allotment in the light of the observations made therein. The judgment categorically held that the petitioner was entitled to the choice of his land situate in Village Siswa Goitee which was not included in the schedule of the surplus of the land appended to the order passed by the prescribed authority on 28.02.1995. It was further held that the petitioner was entitled for automatic restitution in case he has been dispossessed and as a matter of fact, the proceedings for cancellation undertaken by the petitioner were very much maintainable. The Court further held that the land, which has not been declared surplus, cannot revert back to the State Government and it has to be reverted back to the tenure holder. Through this judgment dated 15.04.2004, the learned Commissioner was required to act in compliance thereof.

In between, it appears that some land of Village Siswa Goitee was treated to be the holding of respondent no. 4-Nagendra Mani Tiwari and accordingly, it was declared surplus in his hand and was made subject matter of allotment. The petitioner contested the matter and has already filed a SLP before the Supreme Court in the said matter where delay has been condoned and notices have been issued on 31st July, 2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said land never belonged to the respondent no. 4 and has wrongly been treated to be in his share and even otherwise, the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order on 14.11.2011 has completely overlooked the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 15.04.2004.

In relation to the other land of Village Siswa Goitee, which was also similarly treated and incorrectly allotted, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 26440 of 2006 wherein an interim order has been passed on 06.10.2006 and the said writ petition is pending. A copy of the stay order is annexure 8 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly in the present case an additional land has now been allotted without adverting to the judgment dated 15.04.2004 of this Court which is in favour of the petitioner and as such the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption of fact.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 8 submits that the allotments were made in the year 1989 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot now stake a claim in relation to the land which was not the part of his objection u/s 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the impugned order. In the instant case, it is clear that the schedule, which is appended along with the order dated 28.02.1995, has become final, insofar as, the petitioner is concerned. It is only the said land which can be stated to have been declared surplus in the holding of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to retain the land of Village Siswa Goitee. Learned Commissioner has held that plot no. 820 of Village Siswa Goitee was treated to be that of respondent no. 4 and was not in the holding of the petitioner and, therefore, the same does not suffer from any irregularity of allotment. In the opinion of the Court, this conclusion is wrong and it overlooks the order of this Court dated 15.04.2004. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for an interim relief.

Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 shall remain stayed and the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the land in dispute as existing on the date of passing of the impugned order.