JAGBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1981-10-15
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 14,1981

JAGBIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K. P. Singh, J. - (1.)This writ petition is against the judgment of Sri Sushil Kumar, 1st Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 3-10-1980 in Revenue Appeal No. 28/79 Jagbir Singh v. State. The writ petition arises out of proceedings of declaration of surplus area of the petitioner. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities in the present case have patently erred in determining the irrigated land of the petitioner and have also erred in determining the share of the petitioner in the disputed land and have wrongly held the land belonging to Raghuraj Singh as the tenancy of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State has tried to support the impugned judg ment of the appellate Court. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is not disputed before me that the decree under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in favour of Ragburaj Singh against the State exists. The aforesaid decree appears to have been ignored by the appellate Court on the ground that it came into existence after the relevant date i. e. 8th June, 1973. In my opinion neither the provisions of Section 5 sub-clause (6) nor the provisions of Section 5 sub-clause (7) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As regards the decree of favour of Paghuraj Singh under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act it is note-worthy that if a decree in favour of Raghuraj Singh against the State was passed before the determination of surplus area of the petitioner, its effect should have been appreciated by the appellate Court from the correct angle. It appears to me that the appellate Court has patently erred in ignoring the aforesaid decree on the ground that the decree came into existence after 8th June, 1973. On the analogy of the bona fide nature mentioned in the provisions of Section 5 (6) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act if it can be said that the decree against the State in favour of Raghuraj Singh might be a valid decree. To my mind it would not be open to the State to assert that the area which belongs to Raghuraj Singh should be treated as the area belonging to the petitioner Jagbir Singh in the present case. If the area belonging to Raghuraj Singh is excluded from the total area held by the present petitioner the determination of surplus area of the petitioner would stand vitiated in law, and on the ground alone the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed. As regards the petitioner's contention's contention that the Appellate Court has committed an error in determining the irrigated area of the petitioner, I think that the appellate Court in the circumstances of the present case has rightly commented about the local inspection which would not throw any light on the question. But the appellate Court has failed to examine whether the tube well mentioned in the revenue extract was a private tube well or state tube well, and whether it answered the definition of private irrigation work or state irrigation work contemplated by the provisions of Section 3 (14) and (15) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act. Since the appellate Court has not addressed itself to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I think that its finding on the question of irrigated land of the petitioner suffers from patent error of law. As regards the petitioner's share in the disputed land held by the appellate Court as 1/8 and 1/28, it is sufficient to indicate that the extract of 1356-F. alleged by the petitioner on the record of the Ceiling case has not been examined by the appellate Court, If that document has any relevance upon the question of share it should have been examined. In the present case the petitioner has alleged that the aforesaid document is on the record and it has not been controverted by the Siate in its counter- affidavit, hence I leave this question to be canvassed. Before the appellate Court which shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate Court dated 3-10-1980 in Revenue Appeal No. 28/79 Jagbir Singh v. State, is hereby quashed and the appellate Court is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by me above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.