# Ajay Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 861
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000031 of 1994
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48161
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Ceiling Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 9
and 10(2) - General Clauses Act, 1897 -
Section 21 - Second notice was issued u/s
10(2) - Objection filed on the ground that
it was issued against his father, who was
dead - Maintainability of second notice
challenged - First general notice u/s 9
was already issued - Effect - Held, the
prescribed authority has not committed
any error in issuing second notice - It
would not be prudent to institute two
separate cases inasmuch as the notices
have been issued in respect of the same
land holding - High Court issued direction
clubbing
both
notices,
giving
the
petitioner
one
month
time
to
file
comprehensive objection. (Para 18 and
19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Ajay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861
(2022)02ILR A861
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 3000031 of 1994

Ajay Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.S. Sahai, Jai Prakash Dubey, Onkar Nath
Tiwari, U.S.Sahai, Shankar Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Ceiling Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 9
and 10(2) - General Clauses Act, 1897 -
Section 21 - Second notice was issued u/s
10(2) - Objection filed on the ground that
it was issued against his father, who was
dead - Maintainability of second notice
challenged - First general notice u/s 9
was already issued - Effect - Held, the
prescribed authority has not committed
any error in issuing second notice - It
would not be prudent to institute two
separate cases inasmuch as the notices
have been issued in respect of the same
land holding - High Court issued direction
clubbing
both
notices,
giving
the
petitioner
one
month
time
to
file
comprehensive objection. (Para 18 and
19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Lady Parassan Kaur Charitable Educational
Trust Society, Gorakhpur Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2002 (93) RD 663
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking quashing of the notice
dated 4.1.1989 issued by the prescribed
authority under Section 10(2) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960').

2. Initially, a notice under Section
10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to the
petitioner on 24.11.1987. This Notice was
issued against Bhanu Pratap Singh, father
of the petitioner, who had died when the
notice was issued.

3. The petitioner had filed objection
to the first notice. The petitioner said that
an area 14 bigha 18 biswas situated at
Village Shekhpur was exclusive holding of
the father of the petitioner which was
transferred by gift by his father to the
petitioner prior to the cut off dated i.e.
24.1.1971 and as a result of this gift, the
petitioner had come into possession of the
said land and he became bhumidhar of the
said land during the life time of his father.
It is alleged that no objection was filed by
the State to the objection filed by the
petitioner. The parties lead their evidence
and arguments were heard on 30.11.1988
and the next date was fixed as 14.12.1988.
However,
no
order
was
passed
on
14.12.1988 and, thereafter, the case was
fixed for 4.1.1989 for orders. On 4.1.1989,
an application was moved on behalf of the
state before the prescribed authority for
withdrawing the notice dated 24.11.1987
with liberty to file afresh notice. The said
application was allowed on the same date
i.e. 4.1.1989 by the prescribed authority
and notice was allowed to be withdrawn.
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Against the order dated 4.1.1989
passed by the prescribed authority, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad (Now
Ayodhya Ji). The petitioner also prayed for
staying further proceedings before the
prescribed
authority.
The
Divisional
commissioner vide order dated 16.5.1989
directed the parties to maintain status-quo
till 30.5.1989. The appeal filed by the
petitioner was decided by the divisional
commissioner vide order dated 11.7.1991
and set aside the order dated 4.1.1989 and
remanded the matter back to the file of the
prescribed authority and directed him to
decide
the
application
after
inviting
objection from the petitioner.

5. After remand by the Divisional
commissioner to the prescribed authority,
the petitioner had filed objection to the
application dated 4.1.1989 filed by the
State for withdrawing the first notice dated
24.11.1987.
The
petitioner
said
that
application for withdrawal of the first
notice did not contain any reason that why
such an application was moved. The
petitioner prayed for rejection of the
application.
However,
the
prescribed
authority vide order dated 15.12.1993
rejected the application dated 4.1.1989 for
withdrawing
the
first
notice
dated
24.11.1987.

6. On 15.12.1993, second application
for withdrawing the first notice was again
moved by the State. It is said that when the
application
dated
15.12.1993
for
withdrawing
the
first
notice
dated
24.11.1987 was still pending for disposal
before the prescribed authority, second
impugned notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act, 1960 dated 4.1.1989 was issued. The
petitioner had filed objection to the second
notice and the proceedings in respect of the
second notice are also pending before the
prescribed
authority.
The
petitioner
thereafter has filed this writ petition
challenging the issuance of the second
notice.

7. The primary ground which has
been urged by Sri U.S. Sahai, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that there is no
provision under the Act, 1960 or the rules
made thereunder for issuing second notice.
He further submits that second notice is
wholly without jurisdiction and against law
and is liable to be set aside.

8. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for
the petitioner has also submitted that the
first notice was later on corrected and the
arguments were heard and when the
judgment was to be pronounced, the State
authorities
came
forward
with
an
application for withdrawing the first notice.

9. On the other hand, Sri J.P. Maurya,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
has submitted that adjudication has not
taken place in respect of the first notice and
if the authority concerned finds that first
notice was defective or incorrect facts were
mentioned in the first notice, therefore the
authority can issue second notice. He also
submits that Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act provides power to issue,
amend, vary or rescind notifications,
orders, rules or bye-laws. Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under :-

"21. Power to issue, to include
power to add to, amend, vary or rescind
notifications,
orders,
rules
or
byelaws.?Where, by any 1 [Central Act] or
Regulations
a
power
to
2
[issue
notifications,] orders, rules or bye-laws is
conferred, then that power includes a
power, exercisable in the like manner and
2 All. Ajay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
863
subject to the like sanction and conditions
(if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind
any 3 [notifications,] orders, rules or byelaws so 4 [issued].?

10. It is further submitted that it is the
primary duty of the tenure holder to submit
the statement in respect of the excess
ceiling area of his land holding and this
duty has been prescribed in Section 9 of the
Act, 1960, which provides that as soon as
may be, after the date of enforcement of
this Act, the prescribed authority shall, by
general notice, published in the Official
Gazette, call upon every tenure-holder
holding land in excess of the ceiling area
applicable
to
him
on
the
date
of
enforcement of this Act, to submit to him
within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice, a statement in respect of all his
holdings in such form and giving such
particulars as may be prescribed. Subsection (1) of Section 9 of the Act, 1960
prescribes that statement should also
indicate the plot or plots for which the land
holder claims exemption and also those
which he would like to retain as part of the
ceiling area applicable to him under the
provisions of this Act. Section 9 of the Act,
1960 reads as under:-

"9. General notice to tenureholders holding land in excess of ceiling
area for submission of statement in
respect thereof. -[(1)]As soon as may be,
after the date of enforcement of this Act, the
Prescribed Authority shall, by general
notice, published in the Official Gazette,
call upon every tenure-holder holding land
in excess of the ceiling area applicable to
him on the date of enforcement of this Act,
to submit to him within 30 days of the date
of publication of this notice, a statement in
respect of all his holdings in such form and
giving
such
particulars
as
may
be
prescribed. The statement shall also
indicate the plot or plots for which he
claims exemption and also those which he
would like to retain as part of the ceiling
area applicable to him under the provisions
of this Act.

[(2) As soon as may be after the
enforcement
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1972, the Prescribed
Authority shall, by like general notice, call
upon every tenure-holder holding land in
excess of the ceiling area applicable to him
on the enforcement of said Act, to submit to
him within 30 days of publication of such
notice a statement referred to in subsection (1)]:

[Provided that any time after
October 10,1975, the Prescribed Authority
may, by notice, call upon any tenure-holder
holding land in excess of the ceiling area
applicable to him on the said date, to
submit to him within thirty days from the
date of service of such notice a statement
referred to in sub-section (1) or any
information pertaining thereto],

(2A) Every tenure-holder holding
land in excess of the ceiling area on
January 24,1971, or at any time thereafter
who has not submitted the statement
referred to in sub-section (2) and in respect
of whom no proceeding under this Act is
pending on October 10, 1975 shall, within
thirty days from the said date furnish to the
Prescribed
Authority
a
statement
containing particulars of alt land -

(a) held by him and the members
of his family on January 24, 1971

(b) acquired or disposed of by
him or by members of his family between
January 24, 1971 and October 10, 1975.
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[(3) Where the tenure-holder's
wife holds any land which is liable to be
aggregated with the land held by the
tenure-holder
for
purposes
of
determination of the ceiling area, the
tenure-holder
shall,
along
with
his
statement referred to in sub-section (1),
also file the consent of his wife to the
choice in respect of the plot or plots which
they would like to retain as part of the
ceiling area applicable to them and where
his wife's consent is not so obtained the
Prescribed I Authority shall cause the
notice under sub-section (2) of Section 10
to be served on her separately]."

11. He further submits that if the land
holder fails to perform his duty after
publication of the notice under Section 9 of
the Act, 1960, then notice under Section
10(2) of the Act, 1960 is issued for
determination inviting the objections. He,
therefore, submits that even if the first
notice was issued since adjudication did not
take place before issuing second notice,
there is nothing in the Act which bars
issuing the second notice.

12. Nowhere it is provided that in the
provisions of the Act, 1960 that second
notice can not be issued if the first notice is
defective or some area is left out in the first
notice. The only bar is that first notice
ought not to have been adjudicated before
issuing the second notice. He, therefore,
submits that the judgment in the case of
Lady
Parassan
Kaur
Charitable
Educational Trust Society, Gorakhpur vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2002 (93) RD
663, is not applicable to the facts of the
present case inasmuch as in that case
second notice was issued after adjudication
of the first notice and, therefore, this court
relying upon the said judgment held that
after adjudication of the first notice, there is
no provision in the Act, 1960 to issue
second notice to a tenure holder.

13. I have considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as by the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

14. The scheme of the Act, 1960
provides that after the date of enforcement
of the Act, the prescribed authority is
required to issue a general notice to be
published in the Official Gazette calling
upon every tenure holder holding land in
excess of the ceiling area as applicable to
him on the date of enforcement of the Act,
to submit to him within 30 days from the
date of publication of the notice, a
statement in respect of his all land
holdings. The tenure holder is also required
to indicate the plot or plots for which he
would claim exemption and also those
which he would like to retain as part of the
ceiling area applicable to him under the
provisions of the Act.

15. It is further provided that at any
point after 10.10.1975, the prescribed
authority may, by notice, call upon any
tenure holder holding land in excess of the
ceiling area applicable to him on the said
date, to submit to him within 30 days from
the date of service of such notice a
statement as required to be submitted in
sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act,
1960. In case the tenure holder does not
submit the statement or submits any
incomplete or incorrect statement under
Section 9 of the Act, 1960, the prescribed
authority after making an inquiry, prepare a
statement
containing
such
particulars
regarding the excess area of the tenure
holder and indicate the land, if any,
exempted and the plot or plots proposed to
be declared as surplus land. The prescribed
2 All. Sumit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
865
authority shall thereupon cause to be served
upon every such tenure holder a notice
along with copy of the said statement for
his reply if any. Thereafter, the prescribed
authority is required to adjudicate the
notice for declaring the surplus area as
contained in the statement of the notice.

16. Thus, from the reading of Sections
9 and 10 of the Act, 1960, it is evident that
there is duty cast upon the tenure holder to
give correct statement of his land holding
and excess area in the prescribed form after
publication of the notice in the Official
Gazette by the prescribed authority after
enforcement of the Act. In case the tenure
holder fails to declare or submits incorrect
statement, then only proceedings under
Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 would be
initiated against him.

17. In the present case, the first notice
was issued against the father of the
petitioner, who was no more. It is always
open to the competent authority to correct
the mistake as the notice could not have
been issued against a dead person and that
was precise objection of the petitioner in
his objection to the first notice.

18. Considering the provisions of
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, I do
not find that the prescribed authority has
committed any error in issuing second
notice. However, it would not be prudent to
institute two separate cases inasmuch as the
notices have been issued in respect of the
same land holding. Anyway, the petitioner
is not prejudiced by the second notice, if
both the notices are clubbed together and a
comprehensive objection is filed by the
petitioner and, thereafter, the prescribed
authority
decides
the
objection
in
accordance with law after giving due
opportunity to the petitioner.

19. In view thereof, let both notices
dated 24.11.1987 and 4.1.1989 be clubbed
together and the petitioner be given one
month time to file comprehensive objection
in respect of both the notices and the case
be treated as one in respect of both the
notices.

20. Let prescribed authority decide
the case within a period of six months in
accordance with law after giving due
opportunity for leading evidence by the
petitioner and by the State authorities.

21. With the aforesaid observation
and direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
----------
(2022)02ILR A865
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 755 of 2022

Sumit Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Kumar Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi

A. Service Law - The U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Challenge
to-appointment-petitioner had obtained
appointment illegally on compassionate
ground in KGMU, Lucknow after death of
his father-the petitioner mother was
employed in the University itself as female
sick
attendant-Petitioner
deliberately
concealed this fact in his application form-