# Rajendra Singh & another v. Additional Commissioner, Jhansi division, Jhansi & others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9461 of 1988
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-another-v-additional-commissioner-jhansi-division-jhansi-others-40826
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act 1960-Section 5 (2)-Surplus landafter declaration of surplus land by
Prescribed authority on 2.3.1983-during
pendancy
of
appeal-impladment
application by the petitioner-that plot
no. 510 1 Bigha 16 Biswa wrongly
treated the land of respondent No. 4 as
he has been declared bhumidhar by
S.D.O.-held-keeping
in
view
of
explanation II of section 5 inspite of
decree of 1985 the land will be treated
of original tenure holder-No right or title
can be claimed by the petitioner.

Held: Para 6 & 7

In view of the above explanation (ii), in
spite of decree of 1985 land will have to
be treated to be of respondent No.4. In
this regard reference may be made to
Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner 2004(97)
RD 17(SC) and D.N. Agarwal Vs. State
1996
RD

## Text

204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
11.

Office
is
directed
to
communicate this order to the Court
below within two weeks.
Revision Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9461 of 1988

Rajendra Singh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Additional
Commissioner,
Jhansi
division, Jhansi & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kunal Ravi Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ranvir Singh
S.C.

U.P. Imposition Ceiling on Land Holding
Act 1960-Section 5 (2)-Surplus landafter declaration of surplus land by
Prescribed authority on 2.3.1983-during
pendancy
of
appeal-impladment
application by the petitioner-that plot
no. 510 1 Bigha 16 Biswa wrongly
treated the land of respondent No. 4 as
he has been declared bhumidhar by
S.D.O.-held-keeping
in
view
of
explanation II of section 5 inspite of
decree of 1985 the land will be treated
of original tenure holder-No right or title
can be claimed by the petitioner.

Held: Para 6 & 7

In view of the above explanation (ii), in
spite of decree of 1985 land will have to
be treated to be of respondent No.4. In
this regard reference may be made to
Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner 2004(97)
RD 17(SC) and D.N. Agarwal Vs. State
1996
RD
112.
Moreover,
suit
was
decreed ex-parte. It was filed and
decreed after possession had been taken
by the State.

In my opinion, therefore petitioner can
not claim any right in the land in dispute
and it was validly given in the choice by
respondent No.4 to be taken as surplus
land.
Case law discussed:
2004 (97) RD (17) SC
1996 RD-112

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. This writ petition arises out of
proceedings under U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960
(hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling
Act). Respondent No.4 Rameshwar Singh
was tenure holder of the agricultural land
in dispute. Ceiling proceedings were
initiated against him in the form of case
No. 260 which was decided on 2.3.1983
by prescribed authority Kalpi district
Jalaun. Through the said order 7.88 acres
of irrigated land of respondent No.4 was
declared as surplus. Against the said order
appeal No.99/101/10 of 1985-86 was filed
by the respondent No.4, which was
dismissed on 12.2.1988 by respondent
no.1.

2. During pendency of appeal,
petitioners filed impleadment application
stating therein that one of the plots i.e.
plot No. 510 area one bigha, 16 biswa was
wrongly treated to be held by respondent
No.4 and it was actually the petitioners
who were tenure holder of the said plot as
they had matured their right through
adverse possession against respondent
no.4 and they had also filed declaration
suit under section 229 B of U.P.Z.A.L.R
Act which was pending at that time before
S.D.O.
It
was
further
stated
that
petitioners were recorded in column No.9
1 All] Rajendra Singh and another V. Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi and others
205
in the revenue records against the plot in
dispute.
Affidavit
in
support
of
impleadment application was filed on
8.11.1985. It may be mentioned that
respondent No.4 had indicated his choice
regarding surplus land to be taken by the
State and plot No. 510 was included in the
said choice.

3. The appellate court through its
judgment dated 12.2.1988 (dismissing the
appeal) also rejected the impleadment
application of petitioner hence this writ
petition.

4. Appellate court held that it was
proved on the basis of record that
possession of surplus land as per choice
of tenure holder respondent No.4 had
been taken in 1983 hence claim of the
petitioner was not maintainable. Appellate
court rightly held that if petitioners had
any claim then they should have raised
the same in 1983 when possession of
surplus land was being taken. In para 3 of
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
of
impleadment application it was stated that
petitioners filed suit for declaration
against
Rameshwar respondent No.4
before S.D.O, which was decreed on
26.8.1985. Copy of the said order has
been filed as annexure RA 1 to the
rejoinder affidavit.

5. From perusal of the said
judgment, it is clear that the respondent
No.4 who was defendant in the said suit
filed written statement but thereafter
absented himself hence case was decided
ex-parte.

Explanations 1 and 2 to section 5 of
the Ceiling Act are quoted below:

Explanation (i) -In determining the
ceiling area applicable to tenure holder of
land held by him in his own right whether
in his own name or ostensibly in the name
of another person shall be taken into
account.

Explanation (ii) if on or before 24. 1.
1971 any land was held by a person who
continues to be in its actual cultivatory
possession and the name of any other
person is entered in the annual register
after the said date either in condition to or
to the exclusion of former or on the basis
of deed of transfer or licence or on the
basis of a decree it shall be presumed
unless the contrary is proved to the
satisfaction of the prescribed authority
that the first mentioned person continues
to hold the land and that itself was held by
him ostensibly in the name of the second
mentioned person.

6. In view of the above explanation
(ii), in spite of decree of 1985 land will
have to be treated to be of respondent
No.4. In this regard reference may be
made to Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner
2004(97) RD 17(SC) and D.N. Agarwal
Vs. State 1996 RD 112. Moreover, suit
was decreed ex-parte. It was filed and
decreed after possession had been taken
by the State.

7.

In
my
opinion,
therefore
petitioner can not claim any right in the
land in dispute and it was validly given in
the choice by respondent No.4 to be taken
as surplus land.

8. At the time of arguments no one
appeared for respondent No.4 hence
judgment was reserved after hearing
learned counsel for the petitioner and
arguments of the learned standing counsel
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
for the State representing respondents 1,2
and 3. Few minutes thereafter learned
counsel for the respondent No.4 appeared
and stated that respondent No.4 had died
in
May
2000
and
no
substitution
application had been filed. However, as I
am dismissing the writ petition on merit
hence I need not take notice of that.

9. Accordingly there is no merit in
the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14752 of 2002

Narendra Prasad Rai

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.L. Rai
Sri Babu Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.
311
(2)
readwith U.P. Police Officers of the
subordinate
Rules
(Punishment
and
appeal) Rules 1991-Section 8 (2)(b)-
Dismissal order-without recording any
reason about impossibility of holding
enquiry-on
the
ground-unauthorised
absence petitioner found with heroin
about
which-declared
indisciplined
employee-held-order passed in violation
of the provisions of section 8 (2) (b) of
Rules without holding enquiry-petitioner
be given proper opportunity complete
the
enquiry
within
six
months-till
conclusion of disciplinary proceedingimpugned order kept in abeyance.

Held: Para 5

Such being the case, the petitioner is
justified in saying that the impugned
order dated 19.6.1993 has been in
violation of the provisions of section 8
(2)(b) of the Rules aforesaid. The
consequent
order
has
been
passed
without holding any enquiry is also
therefore vitiated. The petitioner is
clearly entitled to the protection granted
under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution
of India.
Case law discussed:
2001 (2) UPLBEC-1775 relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharati Sapru. J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
the
learned
standing
counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has made a prayer
seeking writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned orders dated 19.6.1993 and
2.3.1992 passed by the respondents no. 3
and 2 respectively (Annexures 1 and 2 to
the writ petition). The first the order of
removal
was
passed
by
the
Superintendent of Police and the second is
the order passed in appeal by the D.I.G.
(Police).

3. The contention of the petitioner is
that both the impugned orders are
arbitrary and illegal because the services
of the petitioner have been brought to an
end without giving to the petitioner an
opportunity of hearing and in violation of
the provisions of section 8 (2)(b) of the
U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1991. The contention of the petitioner
also is that the provisions of section 8
(2)(b) of the Rules aforesaid can only be
dispensed with certain circumstances and
although if there are good reasons to do so