# Mahmood Rais v. State of U.P. reported - **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 474 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-04-28 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24777 of 2011 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahmood-rais-v-state-of-u-p-reported-41889 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote C.S.C. Sri J.P.Singh Sri S.K.Anwar Sri T.M. Abbasi Sri Zafar Abbas Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation 103compassionate appointment-minority institution-provision of Regulation 103 already quashed by Single Judge- ## Text 474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 25. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record, it is held that the Prescribed Authority was right in recording that Plot Nos. 169 and 172 were irrigated in view of the fact they were situate in effective command area of Betwa Canal, a Schedule-I Canal. 26. This Court may further clarify that any change in the plots because of the consolidation operation shall not in any way adversely affect the findings recorded qua the original land holding of the petitioner being irrigated, inasmuch as Section 30 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 clarifies that from the date a tenure holder enters into possession of Chak allotted to him shall be deemed to have entered into possession with same rights, title, interest and liability, as he had in the original holdings together with such other benefits of irrigation from a private source, till such source exists. In view of the aforesaid Section 30(b) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the petitioner cannot take benefit of mere change in the plot numbers due to consolidation operation. It is not the case of the petitioner that area of his land holdings has been reduced because of such consolidation operation and he should be given benefit of such reduction in area. 27. In the totality of the circumstances on record, this Court finds no good ground to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24777 of 2011 Lakhan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.N. Singh Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. U.P. Imposition of ceiling on Land Holding Act-1960-Section 14(1)(e)- ceiling appeal admitted-stay application rejected-considering language without deciding appeal-possession of surplus land can not be taken by Collectorrejection of prayer of stay from dispossession-not proper-writ court itself granted interim protection. Held: Para 7 Even otherwise in such matters where an appeal is filed and the same has been admitted, the same presumes a prima facie case of the petitioner. The appellate authority should therefore not refuse to exercise discretion for granting interim relief as indicated in the case of Mahmood Rais V. State of U.P. reported in 2009(5) ADJ 529. Learned Commissioner himself has admitted the appeal and therefore the rejection of the stay application is unjustified. Case law discussed: 2009(5) ADJ 529 (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P.Sahi,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P. and others 475 2. Learned standing counsel states that since a pure question of law is involed it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit at this stage. 3. The petitioner is a tenure holder against whom proceedings were initiated under the U.P.Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the Prescribed Authority vide orderdated 28.2.2011 declared certain land as surplus in the hands of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No.3 of 2010-11 which has been admitted on 15.4.2011. However, while admitting the appeal the application for an interim relief has been rejected on the ground that there is no justification for grant of any interim order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of clause (c) of Section 14(1) of the 1960 Act, the Collector can take possession of the surplus land only after decision in appeal and upon a notification being issued under Section 14. He submits that the aforesaid situation has not arrived and therefore the appellate authority ought to have granted an interim order so as not to disturb the possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned standing counsel submits that as a matter of fact that in view of the legal position as indicated by the petitioner, the appeal itself has to be disposed of before possession can be taken. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as a matter of fact the Collector cannot take possession of the land so long as the appeal is not decided in terms of the provisions referred to hereinabove. 7. Even otherwise in such matters where an appeal is filed and the same has been admitted, the same presumes a prima facie case of the petitioner. The appellate authority should therefore not refuse to exercise discretion for granting interim relief as indicated in the case of Mahmood Rais V. State of U.P. reported in 2009(5) ADJ 529. Learned Commissioner himself has admitted the appeal and therefore the rejection of the stay application is unjustified. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute till the disposal of the appeal at this stage. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61552 of 2008 Naushad Alam ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.A. Azmi Sri J.J. Munir Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Sri J.P.Singh Sri S.K.Anwar Sri T.M. Abbasi Sri Zafar Abbas Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation 103compassionate appointment-minority institution-provision of Regulation 103 already quashed by Single Judge-