Addl. Commissioner Admin Faizabad vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)
Case Details
Heard Sri G.P. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the State respondent. Under challenge is the order dated 21.06.1995 passed by the prescribed authority against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed on 23.07.1996 and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the two orders. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) was initiated however, no notice was issued to the petitioner and in absence of any notice, the petitioner could not furnish the objection in time. It is at a later stage, when the petitioner became aware of the said proceedings, the petitioner furnished his objections which were rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the premise of being barred and delayed by limitation. It is also urged that the aforesaid aspect was raised before the appellate court who has also rejected the aforesaid contention which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice as the petitioner is in possession of land in question and where an attempt is being made to take away the land by the State, the petitioner deserves an opportunity of hearing. The other limb of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said land was granted to the petitioner on lease. Upon the commencement of consolidation operation in the village, the land came to be recorded in the 2 WRIC No. 1001590 of 1997 name of the petitioner and though these issues were raised before the appellate court but they have not been appropriately dealt with. This clearly indicated that the name of the petitioner was duly recorded but in absence of notice, the facts could not appropriately be placed before the appellate court, hence, any action of taking over the land by the State must precede by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and for the aforesaid reasons an opportunity to place all the relevant material before the Court must be granted. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey learned Standing counsel while refuting the submissions has urged that the petitioner was not recorded as the tenure holder. The proceedings under the Act, 1960 was initiated against the recorded tenure holder. There was never any assertion by the original recorded tenure holder that he did not receive any notice rather he contested the proceedings which were decided against him. It is also urged that the order which is said to have been passed during consolidation operations is also post the date when the land was declared surplus. The said proceedings do not inspire confidence as it was the result of a compromise between the tenure holder and the petitioner once the land had already being declared surplus. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that neither the issue of denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner arises as the matter had already being contested by the original tenure holder nor the order of consolidation Authorities can have an impact on the proceedings and once the proceedings have attained finality, now in garb of rehearing, at the behest of the lessee i.e., the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the matter. Accordingly, both the grounds sought to be raised by the petitioner have been appropriately considered and have been turned down which does not require any interference from this court, accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is not the recorded tenure holder. The claim as sought by the petitioner, is on the premise that he is the recorded lessee and the alleged document of title, upon which, the petitioner submits that he has attained or acquired some rights is on the basis of an 3 WRIC No. 1001590 of 1997 orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities only in the year 1985. In light of the aforesaid undisputed fact, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether at any time prior, the name of the petitioner was recorded, to which, it was answered in negative. That being so and a fact which also could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice was served on the original tenure holder namely Raja who had contested the proceedings. The other persons who were also found in possession had also filed their objections, but no such objection was ever filed by the petitioner at any time prior. Once the original tenure holder had contested the proceedings and lost in appeal, now, it is not open for the petitioner to take up the same issue claiming independent rights for the reasons that prior to 1985 the petitioner did not have any independent right at all. Thus, the contention that the petitioner has suffered on account of non service of notice or any opportunity of hearing has been denied does not reflect from the record, nor it can come to the aid of the petitioner. Considering the other issue regarding the claim of title on the basis of an order passed during consolidation operation, suffice to say, that the same was not brought on record of this writ petition. However, from a perusal of the judgment passed by the appellate court, it would reveal that the same has been taken note of and it has clearly being noticed that the said order is post 1985 when the land of the original tenure holder has already been declared surplus. It is also not disputed that the order during consolidation operations is an outcome of compromise. Once the land had been declared surplus, the original tenure holder did not have any right to enter into a compromise and in case, if such a compromise was there, it ought to have been proved that it was not a motivated order only to get out of the clutches of the Act of 1960. These findings which have been recorded by the appellate court which could not be shown to be erroneous. They being findings of fact which are based on appreciation of the material on record cannot be term to be perverse. Accordingly, this Court is an agreement with the order passed by the appellate court and finds that there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. November 7, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard Sri G.P. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the State respondent. Under challenge is the order dated 21.06.1995 passed by the prescribed authority against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed on 23.07.1996 and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the two orders. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) was initiated however, no notice was issued to the petitioner and in absence of any notice, the petitioner could not furnish the objection in time. It is at a later stage, when the petitioner became aware of the said proceedings, the petitioner furnished his objections which were rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the premise of being barred and delayed by limitation. It is also urged that the aforesaid aspect was raised before the appellate court who has also rejected the aforesaid contention which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice as the petitioner is in possession of land in question and where an attempt is being made to take away the land by the State, the petitioner deserves an opportunity of hearing. The other limb of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said land was granted to the petitioner on lease. Upon the commencement of consolidation operation in the village, the land came to be recorded in the 2 WRIC No. 1001590 of 1997 name of the petitioner and though these issues were raised before the appellate court but they have not been appropriately dealt with. This clearly indicated that the name of the petitioner was duly recorded but in absence of notice, the facts could not appropriately be placed before the appellate court, hence, any action of taking over the land by the State must precede by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and for the aforesaid reasons an opportunity to place all the relevant material before the Court must be granted. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey learned Standing counsel while refuting the submissions has urged that the petitioner was not recorded as the tenure holder. The proceedings under the Act, 1960 was initiated against the recorded tenure holder. There was never any assertion by the original recorded tenure holder that he did not receive any notice rather he contested the proceedings which were decided against him. It is also urged that the order which is said to have been passed during consolidation operations is also post the date when the land was declared surplus. The said proceedings do not inspire confidence as it was the result of a compromise between the tenure holder and the petitioner once the land had already being declared surplus. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that neither the issue of denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner arises as the matter had already being contested by the original tenure holder nor the order of consolidation Authorities can have an impact on the proceedings and once the proceedings have attained finality, now in garb of rehearing, at the behest of the lessee i.e., the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the matter. Accordingly, both the grounds sought to be raised by the petitioner have been appropriately considered and have been turned down which does not require any interference from this court, accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is not the recorded tenure holder. The claim as sought by the petitioner, is on the premise that he is the recorded lessee and the alleged document of title, upon which, the petitioner submits that he has attained or acquired some rights is on the basis of an 3 WRIC No. 1001590 of 1997 orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities only in the year 1985. In light of the aforesaid undisputed fact, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether at any time prior, the name of the petitioner was recorded, to which, it was answered in negative. That being so and a fact which also could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice was served on the original tenure holder namely Raja who had contested the proceedings. The other persons who were also found in possession had also filed their objections, but no such objection was ever filed by the petitioner at any time prior. Once the original tenure holder had contested the proceedings and lost in appeal, now, it is not open for the petitioner to take up the same issue claiming independent rights for the reasons that prior to 1985 the petitioner did not have any independent right at all. Thus, the contention that the petitioner has suffered on account of non service of notice or any opportunity of hearing has been denied does not reflect from the record, nor it can come to the aid of the petitioner. Considering the other issue regarding the claim of title on the basis of an order passed during consolidation operation, suffice to say, that the same was not brought on record of this writ petition. However, from a perusal of the judgment passed by the appellate court, it would reveal that the same has been taken note of and it has clearly being noticed that the said order is post 1985 when the land of the original tenure holder has already been declared surplus. It is also not disputed that the order during consolidation operations is an outcome of compromise. Once the land had been declared surplus, the original tenure holder did not have any right to enter into a compromise and in case, if such a compromise was there, it ought to have been proved that it was not a motivated order only to get out of the clutches of the Act of 1960. These findings which have been recorded by the appellate court which could not be shown to be erroneous. They being findings of fact which are based on appreciation of the material on record cannot be term to be perverse. Accordingly, this Court is an agreement with the order passed by the appellate court and finds that there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. November 7, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench