# Jag Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1197 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-09-14 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12959 of 1988 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jag-mohan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41747 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote S.C. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 Section 4-A-Declaration of Surplus Land-Without recording the finding regarding-irrigation facility as well as-growing two crops in that relevant year-Non consideration thereof-held-requirement of statutory provision not fulfilled-to order passed by both the authorities not sustainable. Held: Para 7 & 8 Since under the impugned order only first part of the condition has not been recorded to have been satisfied inasmuch as there is no finding that any irrigation facility was made available by the State Irrigation Work after enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972. Requirements of Section 4-A cannot be said to have been satisfied. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct and is well supported by the judgement of this Court in the case of Manmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988 decided on 8.5.2007. For the reasons recorded above this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 6.12.1985 & 15.4.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside. Case law discussed: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988 decided on 8.5.2007 ## Text 3 All] Jag Mohan Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1197 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12959 of 1988 Jag Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.D.N. Singh Sri R.S. Maurya Sri S.K. Shukla Sri V.S. Dwivedi Counsel for the Respondent: S.C. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 Section 4-A-Declaration of Surplus Land-Without recording the finding regarding-irrigation facility as well as-growing two crops in that relevant year-Non consideration thereof-held-requirement of statutory provision not fulfilled-to order passed by both the authorities not sustainable. Held: Para 7 & 8 Since under the impugned order only first part of the condition has not been recorded to have been satisfied inasmuch as there is no finding that any irrigation facility was made available by the State Irrigation Work after enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972. Requirements of Section 4-A cannot be said to have been satisfied. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct and is well supported by the judgement of this Court in the case of Manmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988 decided on 8.5.2007. For the reasons recorded above this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 6.12.1985 & 15.4.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside. Case law discussed: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988 decided on 8.5.2007 (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.) 1. Proceeding under Section 29/30 read with Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated against the petitioner, under notice dated 18.10.1983. The petitioner filed his objections to the aforesaid notice and specifically stated that conditions required under Section 4-A of the Act were not satisfied and that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. It was contended that Gata Nos. 260 & 286 were wrongly shown have become irrigable and, therefore, the entire proceedings are bad. It was clarified that no source of irrigation through State Irrigation Work has come into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 and, therefore, merely because during relevant year two crops were grown, would not lead to conclusion that the land was irrigated. The prescribed authority under the order dated 6.12.1985 rejected the objections so raised and declared 2.30 of irrigated land as surplus. 2. Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi being Appeal No. 4/55/12/38/46 of 1987-88. The appeal has been dismissed under the order dated 15.4.1988. Hence this petition. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is vehemently contended that both the authorities have recorded a finding that since 1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 two crops were grown over the Plot Nos. 260 & 286 as per Aakar Patra-3 of 1389, 1390 & 1391 Fasli the land has to be treated as irrigated. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such findings of the authority is based on misreading of Section 4-A (secondly) which reads as follows: 4-A. Determination of irrigated land. The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion :- firstly, (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years; by - (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579-W/XXIII-62-W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years; or Secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar PradeshImposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972, and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice under Section 10; or 5. He submits that not only it is to be established that two corps were grown in any agriculture year between relevant agricultural year. It has also to be established as to which State Irrigation Work came into operation providing for irrigation facilities for the land before the date of issuance of notice. He clarified that both the conditions must exist together. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 4-A (secondly) consists of two parts: (a) An irrigation facility must have been made available by the State Irrigation Work subsequent to the commencement of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. (b) Two crops must have been grown between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issuance of notice in any one agricultural year. Both the conditions must be satisfied together for Section 4-A (secondly) being attracted. 7..Since under the impugned order only first part of the condition has not been recorded to have been satisfied inasmuch as there is no finding that any irrigation facility was made available by the State Irrigation Work after enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972. Requirements of Section 4-A cannot be said to have been satisfied. 8. The contentions raised on behalf of 3 All] Chandra Bhushan Pandey V. State of U.P. and others 1199 the petitioner appears to be correct and is well supported by the judgement of this Court in the case of Manmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988 decided on 8.5.2007. For the reasons recorded above this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 6.12.1985 & 15.4.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside. 9. Let the Prescribed Authority reexamine the matter in right of the observation made afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner preferably within 12 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Interim order is discharged. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15711 of 2007 Chandra Bhushan Pandey ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shukla C.S.C. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Q.H. Siddiqui C.S.C. Fundamental Rule-56(C) Voluntary Retirement-petitioner a Civil Police Canstable on 23.11.02 applied for voluntary retirement-authorities treating in service placed under suspension by order dated 24.6.06 on allegations of unauthorise absence- 'No' deniel of fact that request for voluntary retirement ever rejected before it became effective on 1.9.03-Subsequent proceeding by treating in service-wholly illegal not sustainable. Held: Para 5 In my view, this defence of the respondents is wholly untenable. Fundamental Rule 56 (c) is very clear and confers a right upon an employee to take retirement prematurely after giving minimum three months' notice. The petitioner, in the case in hand, sought voluntarily retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003. It is not the case of the respondents that his application for voluntary retirement was ever rejected before it came into force, and, hence in my view it became effective on 01.09.2003. In the circumstances the petitioner was entitled to be deemed to have retired on 1st September, 2003. Any subsequent proceeding as well as action of the respondents treating the petitioner as continuing in service thereafter is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. Case law discussed: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Agarwal 2007(2) ESC 760 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel of the respondents and perused the record. 2. The petitioner petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P. Police Force in 1974. On 23.11.2002 he applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003. A copy of this application is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi on 23.11.2003 to higher authorities. Thereafter it appears that no decision was taken thereon though the