State of U.P. vs Ved Prakash and Others

S.P. Srivastava, J.—Heard the learned Counsel representing the Petitioner.

Perused the record.

The only submission urged in support of the writ petition by the learned standing counsel is that the recorded tenure holder, while contesting the notice issued u/s 10 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, had not filed any objection claiming the land in dispute to be ancestral Sir and Khudkasht and, therefore, it was not open to the prescribed authority to entertain the plea in this regard and the appellate authority has erred in allowing the appeal holding that the land in dispute fell within the ceiling limit on the ground that the interest of the other co-tenure holders who claimed to be shareholders in their own independent rights in the ancestral Sir and Khudkasht was liable to be excluded, while determining the extent of the surplus land.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that in tact the plea had been raised in the objection filed u/s 11(2) of the Act by the affected tenure holder who had not been recorded in the revenue records.

Considering the implications arising under the decision of this Court in the case of Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of U.P., , the Respondent authority could very well go into the question of the extent of the tenurial rights claimed by the objectors in the objections u/s 11(2) of the Act while determining the extent of the surplus area of the recorded tenure holder.

The findings returned against the Petitioner by the appellate authority are based on an appraisal of evidence on record and do not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity which may justify any interference in the present proceedings.

No justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.