# Bhagwan Singh and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1097
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13172 of 1988
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-singh-and-others-v-additional-commissioner-meerut-and-others-41729
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Holding Act, 1960 Section 27(6)-Suo
moto Power exercise by commissioner
within 7 years from the date of grant of
Patta of surplus land-Patta approved on
10.03.77 by SDM-section 27 enforced
w.e.f. 10.11 80 vide U.P. Act No.
20/1982-further enhanced from two to 7
years vide U.P. Act No. 24/86-logical
interpretation period of 7 years be
counted from the date 10.11.80 when
section 6 introduced-not from the date
of actual grant.

Held: Para 11

This Court therefore holds that the
period of limitation for exercise of
powers by the Commissioner under
Section 27(6)-A of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act would start
from 10.11.1980 so far as the lease and
settlements prior to the said date are
concerned and the actual date on which
the lease/settlement was granted is
wholly irrelevant.

## Text

3 All] Bhagwan Singh and others V Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others
1097

11. The petition stands dismissed
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13172 of 1988

Bhagwan Singh and others ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Meerut and
others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri A.K. Rai
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.S. Chauhan
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land
Holding Act, 1960 Section 27(6)-Suo
moto Power exercise by commissioner
within 7 years from the date of grant of
Patta of surplus land-Patta approved on
10.03.77 by SDM-section 27 enforced
w.e.f. 10.11 80 vide U.P. Act No.
20/1982-further enhanced from two to 7
years vide U.P. Act No. 24/86-logical
interpretation period of 7 years be
counted from the date 10.11.80 when
section 6 introduced-not from the date
of actual grant.

Held: Para 11

This Court therefore holds that the
period of limitation for exercise of
powers by the Commissioner under
Section 27(6)-A of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act would start
from 10.11.1980 so far as the lease and
settlements prior to the said date are
concerned and the actual date on which
the lease/settlement was granted is
wholly irrelevant.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Petitioner before this Court seeks
quashing of the order of the Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
dated 28.6.1988 wherein in exercise of
powers under Section 27 of sub-clause 4
and 6 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 on 10.11.1980
with the petitioner has been cancelled
after exercise of suo moto powers.

2. The order impugned Annexure
No. 2 to the writ petition is challenged
before this Court only on one ground
namely the proceedings under Section
27(6) Act No. 1 of 1961 were initiated
beyond the prescribed period of "seven
years" provided for under the said clause.
Therefore, the entire proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction. According to
the petitioner, the period of "seven years"
has to be counted from the date of
issuance of the patta in the facts of the
case on 10.3.1977. The notice under
Section 6 itself has been issued on
4.9.1986 i.e. after 7 years therefore is bad.

3. Standing Counsel in reply
contends that an amendment was made by
U.P. Act No. 26 of 1980 were in the
words "two years" as existing in Section
27(6) were substituted by the words
"seven years". This amendment came into
force on 10.11.1980 and the period of
seven years has to be counted after said
dated i.e. 10.11.1980. The impugned
proceedings are therefore within time.

4. I have heard counsel for the
parties and have examined the records.
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

5. From the rival contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner, it is apparently
clear that the only issue involved in the
present writ petition is as to what shall be
the starting point for computation of the
period of "seven years" in terms of
Section 27 in sub-clause 6 and as to
whether in the facts of the case this period
is to be counted from the date patta was
granted/approved by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate i.e. 10.3.1977 or from the date
the section 27(6) was introduced in the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960.

6. For appreciating the aforesaid
controversy, it would be relevant to
reproduce the amendments introduced
words vide U.P. Act No. 20/1982 with
effect from 10.11.1980 in the Act of 1960
and which reads as follows:

7. Amendment of Section 27 of
U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961. - In Section 27 of
the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -

(i) in sub-section (6), for clauses (a)
and (b), the following clauses shall be
substituted, namely :-

"(a) in the case of any settlement
made or lease granted before November
10, 1980, before the expiry of a period of
two years from the said date, and

(b) in the case of any settlement
made or lease granted on or after the said
date, before expiry of a period of five
years from the date of such settlement or
lease."

Vide U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986 the
words "two years' in clause (a) were
substituted to read as "seven years". The
amended
provision
27(6)
reads
as
follows:

(i) in clause (a), for the words "two
years", the words "seven years" shall be
substituted and be deemed always to have
been substituted;

(ii) in clause (b), for the words "five
years from the date of such settlement or
lease", the words "five years from the date
of such settlement or lease or up to
November 10, 1987, whichever be later"
shall be substituted and be deemed always
to have been substituted.

8. From the reading of the aforesaid
provisions of clause (a) and (b) of Section
27 it shall be amply clear that so far as the
settlements made prior to November 10,
1980 are concerned, the Legislature at the
first instance in its wisdom decided to
prescribe the period of "two years" for the
Commissioner to exercise suo moto
powers in the matter of cancellation of
settlements of surplus land. Logical this
period of two years has to be counted
from date of the introduction of subsection 6 i.e. 10.1.1980.

9. In the opinion of the Court, in the
matter of settlements and leases which
were
granted
before
10.11.1980
(irrespective
of
the
date
on
such
settlement was made) the period of two
years was provided for exercise suo moto
powers of the Commissioner and other
interpretation would frustrate the purpose
of the averments so introduced and would
create a situation were lease settlements
granted more than two years prior to
10.1.1980 would not be reopened under
section 27(6).
3 All] Pawan Kumar Yadav V State of U.P. and others
1099

10. This period of "two years" has
been amended to read as "seven years"
and to have always been so substituted
under U.P. Act No. 24/1986. As a logical
conclusion this period of "seven years"
must also be counted from the date
section
6-A
was
introduced
i.e.
10.11.1980.

11. This Court therefore holds that
the period of limitation for exercise of
powers by the Commissioner under
Section 27(6)-A of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act would start
from 10.11.1980 so far as the lease and
settlements prior to the said date are
concerned and the actual date on which
the lease/settlement was granted is wholly
irrelevant.

12. There is another reason for
arriving at the same conclusion. From a
reading of sub-section 27(6)-B it will be
seen that in respect of settlement and
lease granted after 10.10.1980 the period
for exercise of suo moto powers by the
Commissioner has been provided as 5
years from the date of such settlement of
the lease or up to 10.11.1987 whichever is
later. It will therefore be seen that under
clause (b) also the Commissioner can
exercise
suo
moto
powers
up
to
10.11.1987 in respect of lease granted
after 10.11.1980 and qua which the period
of 5 years have expired after such grant.

13. For the reasons recorded above,
this Court finds that the contention raised
on behalf of the petitioner has no force.
The Commissioner could exercise his suo
moto powers within seven years from
8.11.1980 in the matter and he has rightly
done so in the facts of the present case.

14. Writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15505 of 2005

Pawan Kumar Yadav

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P.Shukla
Sri S.K.Misra
Sri L.C.Srivastava
Sri Ashok Tripathi
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Sri N.K.Mishra
Sri Shashi Kant Shukla
Dr. Dharmesh Chaturvedi
Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh
Sri K.M.Mishra
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh
Sri K.S.Pandey
Smt. Mala Srivastava

Counsel For the Respondents:
Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, C.S.C.
Dr. Y.K.Srivastava S.C.

U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Govt.
Servent
(Dyeing
in
Harness)
Rules,
1974-Rule
5-Compassionate
appointment-petitioner are dependent
of work charge permanent muster Roll -
employee-died
in
harness
after
completing 10 to 27 years servicewhether the benefit of compassionate
appointment available ?-held-'No' as
they are not Govt. employees-the case