Mohd. Akmal vs Commissioner Devi Patan Division Gonda And

1. Heard Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 26.05.2001 passed by the appellate Court, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 30.09.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority in proceedings arising out of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 (in short, 'the Act of 1960').

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute in between the parties was in respect of the fact as to whether the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak are irrigated or non-irrigated and the determination for the ceiling limit was to be considered accordingly.

4. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the issue as to whether the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak was irrigated or non-irrigated had already drawn the attention of this Court in earlier round of litigation and as way-back as on

10.09.1989, the High Court had remanded the matter. Despite the said remand, the Prescribed Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in treating the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak as irrigated, which further gave a cause of action to the petitioner to assail the same by filing an 2 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001 appeal, which was also allowed on 18.02.1998. Despite the remand, yet again, the Prescribed Authority fell in the same error and by means of its order dated 30.12.2000, it has treated the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak as irrigated while determining the land under the ceiling limit relating to the petitioner.

5. It in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that once the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28.09.1999, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3, clearly recorded a finding in favour of the petitioner holding that the land of Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak be taken to be un-irrigated, thus, it was not open for the Prescribed Authority to have gone beyond the findings and the directions given by the appellate Court and it again fell in error in treating the said two Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak as irrigated. Thus, the determination of land under the ceiling limit is erroneous and to that extent, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is beyond jurisdiction.

6. It is urged that upon assailing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellate Court ought to have taken note of the order of the appeal dated 28.09.1999 as it was an order of Coordinate Bench and once a finding had been returned in the earlier round by the appellate Court and those findings were never assailed by the State before any superior Court, hence, those findings would be binding on the Coordinate Bench, which has also not considered the matter from this aspect and it has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by means of the instant petition, which deserves to be allowed.

7. Shri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that the Scheme of the Act of 1960 is such that with change in circumstances, if certain land which was earlier treated as un-irrigated becomes irrigated or there are other change in circumstances as per the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act of 1960, it is always open for the State to take a view thereon based on the evidence on record. 3 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001

8. It has further been urged that insofar as the findings recorded by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 28.09.1999 is concerned, which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but on a meaningful reading of the same, it would reveal that the appellate Court had found that the Prescribed Authority had not appropriately considered the manner in which the land is to be determined regarding its status of being irrigated or non-irrigated. It is for the said purpose that the matter was remanded. It was not as if the conclusive findings had been recorded regarding Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak is concerned, hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said findings had attained finality is not quite correct.

9. The issue of determination of land should have been done appropriately and the Prescribed Authority for that matter may be to some extent did not determine the land covered by ceiling limit appropriately.

10. It is further urged that while the appellate Court in its judgment dated

28.09.1999 has referred to certain decisions, but there is no conclusive findings insofar as the material available on record upon which it has based any concrete finding regarding Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak being exempted as non-irrigated.

11. Once the matter was available before the Prescribed Authority, hence, he had to take note of the material and documents on record upon which his findings should have been given, hence, the said order which has been affirmed in appeal requires no interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

13. The Court finds that as far as the dispute is concerned, this has been engaging the attention of the Courts for more than three decades. The sole issue which is recurring each time before the Court is regarding status of the land as irrigated or non-irrigated.

14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that if the judgment of the appellate Court dated 28.09.1999 is seen, which was passed in Appeal No.26/45, it 4 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001 would reveal that the appellate Court was not satisfied in the manner in which the land was determined for the purposes of describing the ceiling limit.

15. The first appellate Court in its judgment did definitely record that it was not appropriate for the Prescribed Authority to treat the land as un- irrigated or irrigated without following the criteria which has been elaborately provided in Section 4-A of the Act of 1960.

16. It is in this context that the matter was remanded and once again the Prescribed Authority after taking note of the chronology of facts as it unfolded noticing the earlier orders of remand had framed two points of determination. While considering the first point of determination, which related to Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak, it found that there was ample material available on record to indicate that the said land was recorded as having two crops.

17. It has also been noticed that in terms of Section 4-A of the Act of 1960 if any of the criteria which is pointed out in the said section is attracted then the land would be treated as irrigated.

18. That being so, this Court finds that insofar as the Prescribed Authority is concerned, it has taken note of the documents available on record and has recorded a finding that insofar as the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak is concerned, they are to be treated as irrigated land. The bone of contention for the petitioner stems from this findings inasmuch as it is stated that once these findings had already been returned by the appellate Court, it was not open for the Prescribed Authority under remand order to have gone beyond the scope of the said order.

19. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice that insofar as the finding of the appellate Court in its order dated 28.09.1999 is concerned, there has been no consideration of any specific evidence or material on record for the appellate Court to have come to a conclusion that the land relating to Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak was irrigated.

20. In this view of the matter where this issue is to be appropriately considered, accordingly, the fact remains that may be the trial Court 5 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001 though is bound by the order of remand, but where the order of remand was such that it required the trial Court to consider the material on record and then give its findings as to whether the land is irrigated or not, it was of primary importance.

21. This has not been considered appropriately, therefore, this Court finds that it is a fit case where the orders impugned deserves to be set aside and the matter be determined by the Prescribed Authority appropriately taking specific notice of the material which is already available on record and thereafter return its findings insofar as determining the ceiling limit is concerned.

22. Insofar as the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak is concerned, the respondents-State or the petitioner will not be entitled to lead any fresh evidence and only on the basis of the evidence already available on record, it will be re-determined as to whether the land is irrigated or not and thereafter it would be considered for a final determination for the ceiling limit, be done.

23. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. The matter shall stand restored on the Board of the Prescribed Authority, where the parties shall appear on 17.11.2025 and the Prescribed Authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall decide the matter afresh taking note of the observations made hereinabove and endeavour be made to decide the matter preferably within a period of six month commencing from 17.11.2025. October 30, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 26.05.2001 passed by the appellate Court, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 30.09.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority in proceedings arising out of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 (in short, 'the Act of 1960').

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute in between the parties was in respect of the fact as to whether the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak are irrigated or non-irrigated and the determination for the ceiling limit was to be considered accordingly.

4. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the issue as to whether the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak was irrigated or non-irrigated had already drawn the attention of this Court in earlier round of litigation and as way-back as on

10.09.1989, the High Court had remanded the matter. Despite the said remand, the Prescribed Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in treating the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak as irrigated, which further gave a cause of action to the petitioner to assail the same by filing an 2 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001 appeal, which was also allowed on 18.02.1998. Despite the remand, yet again, the Prescribed Authority fell in the same error and by means of its order dated 30.12.2000, it has treated the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak as irrigated while determining the land under the ceiling limit relating to the petitioner.

5. It in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that once the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28.09.1999, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3, clearly recorded a finding in favour of the petitioner holding that the land of Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak be taken to be un-irrigated, thus, it was not open for the Prescribed Authority to have gone beyond the findings and the directions given by the appellate Court and it again fell in error in treating the said two Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak as irrigated. Thus, the determination of land under the ceiling limit is erroneous and to that extent, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is beyond jurisdiction.

6. It is urged that upon assailing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellate Court ought to have taken note of the order of the appeal dated 28.09.1999 as it was an order of Coordinate Bench and once a finding had been returned in the earlier round by the appellate Court and those findings were never assailed by the State before any superior Court, hence, those findings would be binding on the Coordinate Bench, which has also not considered the matter from this aspect and it has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by means of the instant petition, which deserves to be allowed.

7. Shri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that the Scheme of the Act of 1960 is such that with change in circumstances, if certain land which was earlier treated as un-irrigated becomes irrigated or there are other change in circumstances as per the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act of 1960, it is always open for the State to take a view thereon based on the evidence on record. 3 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001

8. It has further been urged that insofar as the findings recorded by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 28.09.1999 is concerned, which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but on a meaningful reading of the same, it would reveal that the appellate Court had found that the Prescribed Authority had not appropriately considered the manner in which the land is to be determined regarding its status of being irrigated or non-irrigated. It is for the said purpose that the matter was remanded. It was not as if the conclusive findings had been recorded regarding Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak is concerned, hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said findings had attained finality is not quite correct.

9. The issue of determination of land should have been done appropriately and the Prescribed Authority for that matter may be to some extent did not determine the land covered by ceiling limit appropriately.

10. It is further urged that while the appellate Court in its judgment dated

28.09.1999 has referred to certain decisions, but there is no conclusive findings insofar as the material available on record upon which it has based any concrete finding regarding Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak being exempted as non-irrigated.

11. Once the matter was available before the Prescribed Authority, hence, he had to take note of the material and documents on record upon which his findings should have been given, hence, the said order which has been affirmed in appeal requires no interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

13. The Court finds that as far as the dispute is concerned, this has been engaging the attention of the Courts for more than three decades. The sole issue which is recurring each time before the Court is regarding status of the land as irrigated or non-irrigated.

14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that if the judgment of the appellate Court dated 28.09.1999 is seen, which was passed in Appeal No.26/45, it 4 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001 would reveal that the appellate Court was not satisfied in the manner in which the land was determined for the purposes of describing the ceiling limit.

15. The first appellate Court in its judgment did definitely record that it was not appropriate for the Prescribed Authority to treat the land as un- irrigated or irrigated without following the criteria which has been elaborately provided in Section 4-A of the Act of 1960.

16. It is in this context that the matter was remanded and once again the Prescribed Authority after taking note of the chronology of facts as it unfolded noticing the earlier orders of remand had framed two points of determination. While considering the first point of determination, which related to Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak, it found that there was ample material available on record to indicate that the said land was recorded as having two crops.

17. It has also been noticed that in terms of Section 4-A of the Act of 1960 if any of the criteria which is pointed out in the said section is attracted then the land would be treated as irrigated.

18. That being so, this Court finds that insofar as the Prescribed Authority is concerned, it has taken note of the documents available on record and has recorded a finding that insofar as the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak is concerned, they are to be treated as irrigated land. The bone of contention for the petitioner stems from this findings inasmuch as it is stated that once these findings had already been returned by the appellate Court, it was not open for the Prescribed Authority under remand order to have gone beyond the scope of the said order.

19. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice that insofar as the finding of the appellate Court in its order dated 28.09.1999 is concerned, there has been no consideration of any specific evidence or material on record for the appellate Court to have come to a conclusion that the land relating to Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak was irrigated.

20. In this view of the matter where this issue is to be appropriately considered, accordingly, the fact remains that may be the trial Court 5 WRIC No. 3000050 of 2001 though is bound by the order of remand, but where the order of remand was such that it required the trial Court to consider the material on record and then give its findings as to whether the land is irrigated or not, it was of primary importance.

21. This has not been considered appropriately, therefore, this Court finds that it is a fit case where the orders impugned deserves to be set aside and the matter be determined by the Prescribed Authority appropriately taking specific notice of the material which is already available on record and thereafter return its findings insofar as determining the ceiling limit is concerned.

22. Insofar as the Plots No.290 and 296 of Village Fakeerchak is concerned, the respondents-State or the petitioner will not be entitled to lead any fresh evidence and only on the basis of the evidence already available on record, it will be re-determined as to whether the land is irrigated or not and thereafter it would be considered for a final determination for the ceiling limit, be done.

23. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. The matter shall stand restored on the Board of the Prescribed Authority, where the parties shall appear on 17.11.2025 and the Prescribed Authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall decide the matter afresh taking note of the observations made hereinabove and endeavour be made to decide the matter preferably within a period of six month commencing from 17.11.2025. October 30, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench