Shyam Kumar Anand vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents except Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel who is representing the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 Bashir.

2. The record would indicate that the private respondents no.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 had expired during the pendency of the proceedings and upon an application moved by the petitioner to bring the legal heirs on record, which was allowed on 20.03.2024, the legal heirs of the deceased respondents are on record. As already noticed above, none put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents despite the names of number learned counsel having been shown in the additional cause list as counsel for the private respondents.

3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby upon an appeal preferred by one Ram Prasad (predecessor in interest of the private respondents no.4 to 7) under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Land Ceiling Act, 1960, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 02.07.1985 was set aside and a direction 2 WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005 was issued to correct the entries. This order passed in appeal dated

16.06.2025 came to be assailed by the present petitioner.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the Act of 1960 were initiated against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner Seth Sita Ram. Upon the commencement of ceiling proceedings vide order dated 20.06.1963,

124.29 acre of land was declared surplus. Seth Sita Ram preferred an appeal against the said order which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to be decided afresh light of observations made by the appellate court.

5. After remand the land was further assessed and this time 29.61 acres of land was found to be surplus. It is in the interregnum that Seth Sita Ram expired. Wife of Seth Sita Ram moved an application indicating to the Prescribed Authority that her husband Seth Sita Ram had expired and as he was also granted ten acres of land for planting a grove in the year 1966 and vide order dated 10.11.1975 the name of Seth Sita Ram was required to be incorporated but the name of Seth Sita Ram had not been incorporated in the revenue records, as a consequence, the said land became the subject matter of lease being granted to the private respondents. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated

02.07.1985 in stead of correcting the entries once again committed a mistake of incorporating the name of Seth Sita Ram who had already expired.

6. While passing the order the Prescribed Authority did not realize that Seth Sita Ram had already expired and it was his wife who had come forward to get the name incorporated. The impact of the order dated 02.07.1985 was that inadvertently the name of certain lease holders were incorporated that was struck down and name of Seth Sita Ram was to be incorporated.

7. It is in this backdrop that one of the lase holders, namely, Ram Prasad had preferred an appeal and even before the appellate court three facts clearly emerged: (i) Seth Sita Ram was granted ten acres of land in the year 1966; (ii) Seth Sita Ram had expired; (iii) Seth Sita 3 WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005 Ram in pursuance of the lease granted in 1966 had already planted his grove and this was also verified by the reports of the Lekhpal.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate court noticed the aforesaid three facts and found that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated

02.07.1985 was liable to be set aside and after quashing the said order direction was issued to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries. It is this order which is under challenge at the behest of the petitioner.

9. Shri Verma learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order could not dispute the fact that in so far as the petitioner is concerned he being the successor of Seth Sita Ram and upon the death of Sita Ram the name of his heirs had to be incorporated, which necessarily would include the petitioner himself.

10. Since the appellate authority had directed the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries then how the petitioner would be aggrieved was a question posed to Shri Verma who made a feeble attempt but could not give any cogent reason as to why the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

11. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 submitted that their name was recorded. They were granted the possession and the respondents had planted a grove. A specific query was put to Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel indicate the record as to how he substantiates his aforesaid submissions. He also made a feeble attempt but he was apparently handicapped for the reason that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

12. This Court notices that the writ petition is pending before this Court since 2005 and two decades have gone by and yet the private respondents have not filed their counter-affidavit.

13. Be that as it may, the submission of Shri Ashok Kumar also does not find favour for the simple reason that in the order impugned dated 4 WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005

16.06.2005, there is a categoric finding that the lease holders were not given the possession rather the same was with Seth Sita Ram who had planted his grove. In this view of the matter, the submission of Shri Ashok Kumar cannot be accepted.

14. There is another reason for discarding his submission and i.e. if at all these findings were there in the order dated 16.06.2005 which is contrary to the right as asserted by the lease holders including Bashir, then apparently Bashir should have also been aggrieved as the findings recorded in the order of the Appellate Court are against them, which has not been challenged by Bashir or any other alleged lease holder by filing a writ petition.

15. Since none of the lease holders have come forward to assail this and has already noticed above, the counsel for the petitioner also could not justify the reason why the petitioner has filed this writ and in the given factual circumstances, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the appellate court while remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries, hence for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 2, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents except Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel who is representing the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 Bashir.

2. The record would indicate that the private respondents no.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 had expired during the pendency of the proceedings and upon an application moved by the petitioner to bring the legal heirs on record, which was allowed on 20.03.2024, the legal heirs of the deceased respondents are on record. As already noticed above, none put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents despite the names of number learned counsel having been shown in the additional cause list as counsel for the private respondents.

3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby upon an appeal preferred by one Ram Prasad (predecessor in interest of the private respondents no.4 to 7) under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Land Ceiling Act, 1960, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 02.07.1985 was set aside and a direction 2 WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005 was issued to correct the entries. This order passed in appeal dated

16.06.2025 came to be assailed by the present petitioner.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the Act of 1960 were initiated against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner Seth Sita Ram. Upon the commencement of ceiling proceedings vide order dated 20.06.1963,

124.29 acre of land was declared surplus. Seth Sita Ram preferred an appeal against the said order which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to be decided afresh light of observations made by the appellate court.

5. After remand the land was further assessed and this time 29.61 acres of land was found to be surplus. It is in the interregnum that Seth Sita Ram expired. Wife of Seth Sita Ram moved an application indicating to the Prescribed Authority that her husband Seth Sita Ram had expired and as he was also granted ten acres of land for planting a grove in the year 1966 and vide order dated 10.11.1975 the name of Seth Sita Ram was required to be incorporated but the name of Seth Sita Ram had not been incorporated in the revenue records, as a consequence, the said land became the subject matter of lease being granted to the private respondents. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated

02.07.1985 in stead of correcting the entries once again committed a mistake of incorporating the name of Seth Sita Ram who had already expired.

6. While passing the order the Prescribed Authority did not realize that Seth Sita Ram had already expired and it was his wife who had come forward to get the name incorporated. The impact of the order dated 02.07.1985 was that inadvertently the name of certain lease holders were incorporated that was struck down and name of Seth Sita Ram was to be incorporated.

7. It is in this backdrop that one of the lase holders, namely, Ram Prasad had preferred an appeal and even before the appellate court three facts clearly emerged: (i) Seth Sita Ram was granted ten acres of land in the year 1966; (ii) Seth Sita Ram had expired; (iii) Seth Sita 3 WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005 Ram in pursuance of the lease granted in 1966 had already planted his grove and this was also verified by the reports of the Lekhpal.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate court noticed the aforesaid three facts and found that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated

02.07.1985 was liable to be set aside and after quashing the said order direction was issued to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries. It is this order which is under challenge at the behest of the petitioner.

9. Shri Verma learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order could not dispute the fact that in so far as the petitioner is concerned he being the successor of Seth Sita Ram and upon the death of Sita Ram the name of his heirs had to be incorporated, which necessarily would include the petitioner himself.

10. Since the appellate authority had directed the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries then how the petitioner would be aggrieved was a question posed to Shri Verma who made a feeble attempt but could not give any cogent reason as to why the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

11. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.12 submitted that their name was recorded. They were granted the possession and the respondents had planted a grove. A specific query was put to Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel indicate the record as to how he substantiates his aforesaid submissions. He also made a feeble attempt but he was apparently handicapped for the reason that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

12. This Court notices that the writ petition is pending before this Court since 2005 and two decades have gone by and yet the private respondents have not filed their counter-affidavit.

13. Be that as it may, the submission of Shri Ashok Kumar also does not find favour for the simple reason that in the order impugned dated 4 WRIC No. 3000051 of 2005

16.06.2005, there is a categoric finding that the lease holders were not given the possession rather the same was with Seth Sita Ram who had planted his grove. In this view of the matter, the submission of Shri Ashok Kumar cannot be accepted.

14. There is another reason for discarding his submission and i.e. if at all these findings were there in the order dated 16.06.2005 which is contrary to the right as asserted by the lease holders including Bashir, then apparently Bashir should have also been aggrieved as the findings recorded in the order of the Appellate Court are against them, which has not been challenged by Bashir or any other alleged lease holder by filing a writ petition.

15. Since none of the lease holders have come forward to assail this and has already noticed above, the counsel for the petitioner also could not justify the reason why the petitioner has filed this writ and in the given factual circumstances, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the appellate court while remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to correct the entries, hence for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 2, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench