# Bhola Nath & Ors v. Addl. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 301
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3000036 of 1998
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhola-nath-ors-v-addl-commissioner-faizabad-ors-48660
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Ceiling Law - UP Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections
10(2), 11(2), 26, 27(1) & 27(3) -
Declaration of the petitioner's land as
surplus land - No notice issued u/s
10(2)
-
Application
u/s
27(4)
for
cancellation of lease granted in favour of
respondent was filed - Application was
found not maintainable as petitioner is
not
aggrieved
person
-
Legality
challenged - Word 'Aggrieved person' -
Definition
-
Heading
of
S.
27
is
'Settlement of surplus land' - Effect -
Held, admittedly the petitioner is not a
person who comes under clause 1 or
clause 3 of Section 27 of the Act, 1960
for settlement of surplus land, and
therefore, the present petitioners would
not be covered under the purview of the
words 'any aggrieved person' - The
order of the appellate authority that the
application u/s 27(4) does not attract in
the matter of the petitioners does not
assail any illegality or infirmity - High
Court left open to the petitioners to avail
remedy in accordance with law. (Para
20, 23, 24, 25 and 28)
Writ petition dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

6 All. Bhola Nath & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
301
9.9.2021 onwards are, hereby, quashed.
The matter is remanded back for a re-trial
of Election Petition No. 1542 of 2021. On
15th July, 2022, the parties shall appear
before the Prescribed Authority, to whom
the case is transferred by the District
Magistrate, who shall grant reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner - defendant to
file his written statement and proceed to
hear the case in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, without granting
any unnecessary adjournment to either of
the parties.

40. With the aforesaid direction, the
petitions are allowed.

41. Let this order be communicated to
the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh by Joint
Registrar (Civil) by 6.6.2022.
----------
(2022)06ILR A301
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 3000036 of 1998

Bhola Nath & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
U.C. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Ceiling Law - UP Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections
10(2), 11(2), 26, 27(1) & 27(3) -
Declaration of the petitioner's land as
surplus land - No notice issued u/s
10(2)
-
Application
u/s
27(4)
for
cancellation of lease granted in favour of
respondent was filed - Application was
found not maintainable as petitioner is
not
aggrieved
person
-
Legality
challenged - Word 'Aggrieved person' -
Definition
-
Heading
of
S.
27
is
'Settlement of surplus land' - Effect -
Held, admittedly the petitioner is not a
person who comes under clause 1 or
clause 3 of Section 27 of the Act, 1960
for settlement of surplus land, and
therefore, the present petitioners would
not be covered under the purview of the
words 'any aggrieved person' - The
order of the appellate authority that the
application u/s 27(4) does not attract in
the matter of the petitioners does not
assail any illegality or infirmity - High
Court left open to the petitioners to avail
remedy in accordance with law. (Para
20, 23, 24, 25 and 28)
Writ petition dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Ram Bahadur @ Laxmi Prasad Vs Collector,
Hamirpur & ors. 2004(96) RD 555
2. C.M.W.P. No. 40601 of 1993; Girdhari Lal Vs
Additional Commissioner Judicial (Ist) Bareilly
Division & ors. decided on 19.08.1993
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State and
perused the records.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed
assailing the order dated 6th February, 1998
passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad.

3. Matter pertains to year 1998.

4. From perusal of the order sheet, it
is evident that no counter affidavit has been
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed by the State yet, since the matter
pertains
to
year
1998,
under
such
circumstances, no further time can be
granted to the counsel for the State to file
counter affidavit. Prima facie, it seems to
be legal question involved in the matter, as
such the Court is proceeding to hear this
matter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits
that
ceiling
proceeding
was
initiated in the year 1989 wherein the land
of Raja Pratap Bahadur Singh was declared
surplus including the present petitioners
also. He submits that while initiating and
concluding
the
aforesaid
ceiling
proceeding, no notice was issued and no
opportunity of hearing was ever given to
the petitioners. He further submits that on
26th December, 1990, lease under Section
26 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act,
1960') was granted in favour of the
respondent no.2 by Sub-Divisional Officer,
Barabanki and that lease was settled in
favour of the respondent no.2.

6. He added that since ceiling
proceeding was going on and during that
ceiling proceeding CLH Form 23 was
made available to the petitioners on 4th
October, 1994 then the fact with regard to
aforesaid ceiling proceeding came into
knowledge of the petitioners. He further
added that after the aforesaid information
came to the petitioners, they filed an
application under Section 27(4) of the
Act, 1960 for cancellation of Patta/lease
granted in favour of respondent no.2. He
submits that, at the very inception stage,
the status quo was granted by respondent
no.1 and after calling objections from the
respondents, the matter was finally heard
and
decided
by
the
Additional
Commissioner vide order dated 2nd
February, 1998, which is under challenge
in this writ petition.

7. He also argued that the petitioners
are co-tenure holders of Raja Pratap
Bahadur Singh, whose land considered
and
declared
surplus
land
by
the
prescribed authority.

8. He further submits that, in fact, it
is a case where the ceiling proceeding
was concluded in absence of petitioners
but it was done without issuance of any
notice. He submits that absence cannot be
termed if no notices ever issued to the
petitioners. He further added that in such
a case remedy available to the petitioners
was under Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960
and as such he has rightly preferred an
application under the aforesaid provision.

9. He has argued that the learned
Additional
Commissioner
without
considering the aforesaid provision has
given its finding that the application
under Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 is
not maintainable. He added that finding
of
the Additional
Commissioner
is
perverse as he has recorded the finding
that no evidence was adduced by the
present petitioners before the Additional
Commissioner. In fact, the petitioners had
adduced the evidences which have been
discussed in the order dated on 21st
February, 1998.

10. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing for the State has
vehemently
opposed
the
contention
aforesaid and submits that from bare
reading of Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 it
is evident that the same is with regard to
the settlement of surplus land. The head
notes of the Section 27 itself connotes that
the proceeding under Section 27 starts after
6 All. Bhola Nath & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
303
the proceedings of declaration of ceiling
land are concluded and such surplus land
vests in the State.

11. He has added his argument and
drawn attention towards sub-clause (i) of
Clause 4 of Section 27 of the Act, 1960 and
submits that since after the proceeding
under Section 27(4), records available to
the Commissioner to revert such land in
favour of the State Government. He has
also drawn attention on Sub-Section 3 of
Section 27, wherein he has referred that the
word which denotes that "any remaining
surplus land settlement by the Collector in
accordance with the order of preference
and subject to the limits" clearly indicate
that the same is with regard to the
settlement of surplus land. He submits that
word 'any aggrieved person' is qualified by
sub-clause (1) and (3) of Section 27 of the
Act, 1960.

12. He further added his argument
that the recourse which is open to the
petitioners is to approach the prescribed
authority under Section 11(2) of the Act,
1960. In such view of the matter, no
interference is warranted in the order
passed by the Commissioner.

13.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel has put strength to his
argument while placing the judgment
reported in 2004(96) RD 555 (Ram
Bahadur @ Laxmi Prasad vs Collector,
Hamirpur and others). He has referred
paragraph 21, which is quoted as follows;

"21. The petitioner, against the order
of Prescribed Authority dated 23rd April,
1988
whereby
plot
No.
362
was
earmarked as surplus land to be allotted
to the persons entitled to the same, filed
an application dated 20th November,
1990 under section 27(4) of the Act
before the Commissioner and obtained an
ex parte interim order again on 28th
November, 1990. The Commissioner has
rejected
the
application
on
30th
November, 1995, against which the
petitioner has filed the writ petition No.
8473 of 1996 (fifth petition) challenging
the allotment of the surplus land made in
favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 17 who
were admittedly the persons entitled to
allotment
of
the
surplus
land
in
accordance with the provisions of U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act. This writ petition is not legally
maintainable in view of the earlier writ
petition filed by the petitioner, referred to
above, as also in view of the dismissal of
his writ petition No. 29882 of 1995. The
allotment of land is only consequential
action. Any infirmity or illegality in the
procedure of allotment, as alleged by the
petitioner, cannot be a concern of the
petitioner as he is neither an applicant
for allotment of the land nor has any
right or interest in the allotment of the
surplus land."

14. Placing the aforesaid judgment,
he submits that the court has very
specifically held that the plot which was
earmarked as surplus land to be allotted
to the persons who are entitled under the
provision of law. He submits that in Subclauses (1) and (3) of Section 27, the
authority has been nominated to allot
such land. He submits that the petitioners
are neither applicants of allotment of the
land nor have any right or interest in the
allotment of the surplus land.

15. He has further placed reliance on
a judgment and order dated 19th August,
1993 passed in C.M.W.P. No. 40601 of
1993
(Girdhari
Lal
vs
Additional
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commissioner Judicial (Ist) Bareilly
Division and others) and has placed
reliance on paragraph 6, which is quoted
hereinunder;

"6. The expression 'aggrieved' is not
statutorily
defined
or
judicially
interpreted and in that event the help of
Dictionary meaning can be obtained. See
State of Orissa v. The Titaghur Paper
Mills Co. Ltd. In the Reader's Digest
Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary, the
word 'aggrieved' connotes distressed,
oppressed, injured, having a grievance.
According to the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, the word 'aggrieved' means
hurt in spirit, injuriously affected, having
a grievance. According to the New
Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the
English Language, the word 'aggrieved'
means having a grievance. According to
Webster's
Third
New
International
Dictionary, the word 'aggrieved' means
troubled, distressed in spirit, showing
grief, injury, having a grievance."

16. Placing the aforesaid judgment,
he submits that the Court has held that
the expression 'aggrieved' has not been
statutorily defined but 'aggrieved' means
having any grievance. He submits that the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved so far
as the intent of Section 27(4) of the Act,
1960 is concerned.

17. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of
records.

18. Before coming to purport of
Section 27, it is necessary to look into the
intent of legislature for envisaging the
provision of Section 27 in the Act, 1960.
'Heading' of Section 27 of the Act, 1960
reads as under;

"Settlement of surplus land"

19. The interpretation of 'Headings' as
per 13th Edition of the book of Justice G.P.
Singh namely 'Principles of Statutory
Interpretation', there is one of the view that
the 'Headings' might be treated "as
preambles to the provisions following
them". Further, if the words mention in the
section
are
plain,
'Headings'
are
meaningless.

20. If we go through the words and
meaning of the 'Headings' that is very clear
that the same connotes the settlement of
surplus land under the Act, 1960. The
question is that what could be 'settled'.
Answer would be 'surplus land'. In such
view, the provision of Section 27 of the
Act, 1960 has been envisaged for such land
which after a due procedure has been
declared as surplus land and thereafter that
has to be settled in favour of such persons,
by such authorities, which are mentioned in
Section 27 of the Act, 1960.

21. Now coming to Sub-clause 1 of
Section 27 of the Act, 1960, the Section
starts with the word that 'the State
Government shall settle out of the surplus
land' whereas no land is available for the
community purpose and if it so settled with
the Gaon Sabha that is used for planting
trees, growing fodder or for such other
community purpose.

22. In Sub-Section 3 of Section 27 of
the Act, 1960, it has been provided that any
remaining surplus land shall be settled by
the Collector in accordance with order of
preference and subject to the limits,
specified respectively in Sub-section (1)
and (3) of Section 198 of U.P. Zamindar
Abolition of Land Reforms Act, 1950 and
then Sub-section 4 of Section 27 comes in
6 All. State of U.P. Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Judicial & Anr.
305
picture wherein the Commissioner is
empowered to either on his own motion or
on the application of the aggrieved person,
inquired into such settlement and if he
found that the same is irregular, he may
issue
show
cause.
The
word
'such
settlement' envisaged in Section 4, derives
its intention from two settlement. One
which
is
been
done
by
the
State
Government under Sub-Section (1) and in
Sub-section (3) by the Collector. Mode has
been prescribed under Section 27(4) that
the Commissioner on his own motion or
any application by any aggrieved person
has been mentioned. So far as own motion
is concerned, that does not attract in the
instant matter but second word which an
application of 'any aggrieved person' is
been
qualified
by
the
word
'such
settlement'.

23. It is admitted fact that the
petitioner is not a person who comes under
clause 1 or clause 3 of Section 27 of the
Act, 1960 for settlement of surplus land,
and therefore, the present petitioners would
not be covered under the purview of the
words 'any aggrieved person'.

24. It is case of the petitioners that
they were the co-tenure holders of Raja
Pratap
Bahadur
Singh
and
without
issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of
the Act, 1960, their land was declared as
surplus land, and as such, the petitioners
if aggrieved, in any way, are not by any
order of settlement passed under SubSection (1) and (3) of Section 27 of the
Act, 1960 but they may be person
aggrieved by the order passed by the
prescribed authority whereby the land of
the petitioners has been declared as
surplus land. The order passed by the
prescribed authority can said to be an
order passed in absence of the petitioners.

25. The appellate authority while
passing the order in appeal which is under
challenge in the writ petition has very
clearly given its finding that the application
under Section 27(4) does not attract in the
matter of the petitioners and as such the
order passed by the appellate authority does
not assail any illegality or infirmity.

26. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, the writ
petition is devoid of merit.

27. Accordingly, the writ petition is
hereby dismissed.

28. However, it is open to the
petitioners to adopt the legal recourse
which is available to them in accordance
with law.

29. No order as to cost.
----------
(2022)06ILR A305
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 3000118 of 1994

State of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Addl. Commissioner Judicial & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
V K Pandey

A. Ceiling Law - Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 4-A -
Declaration as the surplus and - Irrigation