# Shiv Darshan v. Addl. Collector F/R & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1083
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3000122 of 2002
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-darshan-v-addl-collector-f-r-ors-53903
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1 All. Shiv Darshan Vs. Addl. Collector F/R & Ors.
1083

(ii) Deokinandan Prashar v. The Agra District Co-operative Bank, (1973) 3 SCC 303 : AIR 1972
SC 2497.

to contend that in those cases writ petitions against the Co-operative Banks were maintained.
However, neither of the two judgments is found to contain any discussion on the maintainability of the writ
petition. The Supreme Court in the judgment cited by me above has not ruled out the possibility of
maintainability of a writ petition against a Co-operative Society but has laid down the tests therefor. It may
be that the Co-operative Banks in the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner satisfied the said tests
and thus the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was not raised. However, merely because writ
petitions against another Co-operative Bank were entertained, would still not justify the maintainability of
the present writ petition without the petitioner establishing before this Court that the tests are satisfied qua
the respondent and which has not been done by the petitioner inspite of opportunity."

14. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent co-operative society is a private cooperative society, who has established a bank in private capacity. In the entire writ petition, there is no
pleading or assertion that the respondent bank is an instrumentality of the State or is discharging any public
duty so as to fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Mere statutory regulation under
the Co-operative Societies Act or the fact that orders have been passed by the Arbitrator and in the appeal by
the Tribunal does not, by itself, confer maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 against a private
co-operative society in matters arising out of contractual or service-related disputes.

15. The Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments have consistently held that writ
jurisdiction cannot be invoked for adjudication of private disputes involving co-operative societies unless the
society is shown to be State or an instrumentality of State, or the action complained of has a direct public law
element. The present dispute is purely inter se between the member/employee and the society, involving
disputed questions of fact, for which the remedy lies elsewhere and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent No.5 are fully applicable to the case in hand.

16. In view of the fact that in none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, it has been incorporated that
present co-operative society is the instrumentality of the State and in view of the aforesaid facts and settled
legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1083
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000122 of 2002

Shiv Darshan ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Coleector F/R & Ors. ...Respondents
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the finding recorded in the impugned appellate order that no khasras were produced before the
authority concerned and the burden lies upon the appellant to produce the same, is justified?

Headnotes
A. Land Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section(s) 4-A, 10(2) -
Burden to produce the relevant khasras lies on the State, therefore, the finding recorded in the
impugned appellate order that no khasras of 1378-1380 fasli was produced before the authority
concerned and the burden lies upon the appellant to produce the same, is wholly erroneous in
nature and not justified in law. (Para 11, 15)

It is clear that while passing the order by the prescribed authority and appellate court, the relevant
provision of Section 4-A was not taken into consideration and the matter was decided without
considering the same. The provision of Section 5(3)(b) was also not taken into consideration
while deciding the dispute in regard to the proceeding initiated against the petitioner u/s 10(2) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. (Para 13)

The prescribed authority has failed to take into consideration that the land is irrigated or not without
examining the khasra of the year 1378-80 and other relevant records including the village map or by making
local inspection, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. (Para 14)

In regard to the married daughter, the controversy in regard to that shall again be decided by the authority
concerned. (Para 15)

The impugned orders dated 31.12.1999, passed by the prescribed authority and 7.11.2002, passed by the
appellate court are hereby quashed. (Para 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, 1978 SCC OnLine ALL 345 (Para 6)
2. Vyas Prasad Vs. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur, 2018 (1) AWC 863 (Para 6)
3. Adi Kumar Jain Vs. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad, 2016 (2) JCLR 337 (ALL) LB (Para 6)

List of Acts
 U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

List of Keywords
khasra, burden, inspection, sustainable.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Jai Prakash Mishra, Kumar Ayush, Sudhanshu Chauhan
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated
31.12.1999, passed by the prescribed authority and 7.11.2002, passed by the appellate court.
1 All. Shiv Darshan Vs. Addl. Collector F/R & Ors.
1085

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioner on 13.7.1999. In pursuance thereof, the
petitioner submitted his objection on 12.8.1999. The prescribed authority passed the impugned
order, holding 1.9 acres land as surplus, against which, appeal was filed before the Commissioner,
Lucknow Region, Lucknow, who has passed an order on 7.11.2002, affirming the order of the
prescribed authority.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order,
the prescribed authority has not complied with Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act and has proceeded to decide the proceeding illegally. The prescribed authority
has also not examined the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that he
did not examine personally to depose the report to be correct. The burden lies on the court to
summon the Advocate Commissioner to record the statement and on his failure, the contents of the
report is to be examined before passing the order. The prescribed authority has not examined the
same and has committed apparent illegality in the eyes of law.

5. Next submission is that the appellate authority on examination of material, has stated that
burden lies to produce khasra of 1378-1380 fasli on the appellate, which is incorrect. In this regard,
it is submitted that it is settled law that the burden lies on the State to produce the khasras,
therefore, his submission is that non-compliance to produce the khasras to examine the nature is
wholly misconceived and unjustified. Next submission is that the appellate court has wrongly
affirmed the order of the prescribed authority and has proceeded to pass the impugned order.

6. In support of the submission advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
upon the following judgments :-

(i) Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others [1978 SCC OnLine ALL 345].

(ii) Vyas Prasad Vs. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur [2018 (1) AWC 863].

(iii) Adi Kumar Jain Vs. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad [2016 (2) JCLR337
(ALL) LB].

7. On the ground of married daughter, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
relevant date for consideration is 8.6.1973, which is the date of amendment. Notice was issued in
the year 1999 and on the relevant point of time when notice was issued, she was married.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that there was no
occasion to comply with Section 4-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the
material was before the court below and on that basis, the order is passed. Next submission is that
the burden to produce the khasras lies on the person, whose land was taken under U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. After making submission, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel submits that in case the impugned orders are set aside, the matter is to be remanded to the
prescribed authority to consider the same and pass the order.
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused
the material on record as well as the law report cited by petitioner's counsel.

10. For deciding the controversy involved, relevant paragraphs the judgments relied upon on
the point that the burden to produce the relevant khasras lies on the State and not on the appellant
are being quoted as under :-

(i) Jaswant Singh (Supra). Relevant paragraphs 9 to 13 are being quoted as under :-

"9. A perusal of the above would show that Sec. 4-A makes it obligatory on the
Prescribed Authority, to examine khasras for the years are 1378, 1379 and 1380 Faslis. It further
makes it obligatory for the Prescribed Authority also to examine the latest village map. It then
confers a discretion on the Prescribed Authority to examine such other records as it may consider
necessary and also to make local inspection, if that too be necessary. The section then proceeds to
say that thereafter, if the Prescribed Authoriiy be of opinion, as mentioned in sub-sections Firstly,
Secondly and Thirdly, he shall determine the land to be ?irrigated land.? The word ?thereupon?
occurring in Sec. 4-A of the Act, to our mind, is meaningful. According to Webster's New
International Dictionary, the word ?thereupon? means ?as a result of some specified things.?
Reading the word ?thereupon? occurring in Sec. 4-A in that manner, the mandate contained in Sec.
4-A appears to be that the opinion specified in sub-sections Firstly, Secondly and Thirdly of Sec. 4A has to be formed by the Prescribed Authority upon the khasra for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380
faslis, upon the village map, upon such other records as it may consider necessary and upon local
inspection, if the Prescribed Authority considers it necessary to make one. There are no words in
Sec. 4-A to justify anything other than that specified therein to be made use of by the Prescribed
Authority for the formation of opinion on the points specified in sub-sections Firstly, Secondly and
Thirdly thereof. The legislature thought it fit to confine the scope of enquiry to the examination of
documents and local inspection presumably because almost everything that is mentioned in various
sub-sections of Sec. 4-A was capable of being ascertained on the basis thereof and, indeed, where
any fact can be ascertained on the basis of documents, oral evidence can serve no useful purpose.

10. In order to illustrate what we have said above, we may briefly refer to various subsections of Sec. 4-A. Accordingly to sub-section, Firstly of Sec. 4-A, the Prescribed Authority has to
form an opinion (a) whether 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 the notification dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time, (ii) any lift
irrigation canal, (iii) any State tube-well or private irrigation work, and (b) whether that at least
two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years.

11. Now the information regarding source of irrigation as well as the information
regarding crops grown in any plot in any year can be gathered from village record. There may be
some dispute about the existence of some private irrigation work inasmuch as one party may
confirm its existence and the other may deny it. To resolve that conflict the Prescribed Authority
can himself make a local inspection which would reveal beyond any shadow of doubt whether or
not any private irrigation work exists. It would thus appear that no oral evidence is necessary for
forming an opinion on what is stated in clause ?Firstly? of Sec. 4-A.
1 All. Shiv Darshan Vs. Addl. Collector F/R & Ors.
1087

12. According to clause Secondly of Sec. 4-A the Prescribed Authority has to form an
opinion whether irrigation facility became available to any land by a State irrigation work coming
into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition 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 or coming into operation and the date of issue of notice
under Sec. 10. Now, the fact whether or not any irrigation facility became available to any land by
a State irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the commencement of the Amending
Act, 1972, is a fact which can best be established by documents. Similarly the fact whether or not
two crops are grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming
into operation and the date of the issue of notice under Sec. 10 came also be conclusively
established by documents particularly the khasra. For purposes of clause Secondly also, therefore,
oral evidence can hardly serve any purpose.

13. This takes us to clause Thirdly of Sec. 4-A, what the Prescribed Authority has to
conclude thereunder is; (a) whether the land is situated within the effective command area of a life
irrigation canal of a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) whether the class and
composition of its soil is such that it can grow at least two crops in an agricultural year."

(ii) Vyas Prasad (Supra). Relevant paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 28 are being quoted as under :-

"24. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that provisions of the
section 4-A make it obligatory on the Prescribed-Authority, to Texamine Khasras for the years are
1378, 1379 and 1380 Faslis. It further makes it obligatory for the Prescribed Authority also to
examine the latest village map. It then confers discretion on the Prescribed Authority to examine
such other records as it may consider necessary ?and also to make local inspection, if that too be
necessary. The section then proceeds to say that thereafter, if the Prescribed Authority be of
opinion, as mentioned in sub-sections Firstly, Secondly and Thirdly, he shall determine the land to
be ?irrigated land.? There are no words in section 4-A to justify anything other than that specified
therein to be made use of by the Prescribed Authority for the formation of op...

.....??The legislature thought it fit to confine the scope of enquiry to the examination of
documents and local inspection presumably because almost everything that is mentioned in various
sub-sections of section 4-A was capable of being ascertained on the basis thereof and, indeed,
where any ?.fact can be ascertained on the basis of documents, oral evidence can serve no useful
purpose ???????? It is worthy of notice that the documents, which it is obligatory for the
Prescribed Authority to examine under section 4-A, include the village map. It can be found out on
an examination of the village map coupled with the Khasra, whether or not particular land is
situate within the effective command area of any State or private irrigation work, Even if there
remains any doubt after examining the Khasras, the village map, or such other records as may be
available, the Prescribed Authority can himself visit the site and inspect it to himself find out
whether the land in question does or does not fall within the command area of any State or private
irrigation work. As far composition of soil, that too is mentioned in village records. In any case,
oral evidence regarding composition of soil can be most conflicting and consequently, if on any
particular case village records do not contain any information regarding composition of soil, that
fact as well can be ascertained by local inspection. It would thus appear that on all the points
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
?specified in the various subjections of section 4-A the. Prescribed Authority can form an opinion
on the basis of records and local inspection. The legislature,? therefore thought it fit that the
enquiry under section 4-A should remain confined to examination or records and local inspection
and not to production and examination of oral evidence. ...

25. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon. Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Jaswant Singh (supra). More or less the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Knllu v. State of U.P.1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

"Para 6. On reading of section 4-A, it may be seen that the Legislature has prescribed
different kinds of tests on the basis of which the Authorities have to determine whether land is
irrigated land or not for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of tenure-holder. The two
broad tests are (I) availability of irri-gation facilities and (II) the factum of raising the capability of
the soil for, raising at least two crops in an agricultural year.....

"Para.??? In order? to form an opinion whether irrigation facility was available for any
land from one of the sources mentioned in subclauses (i), (ii) and (iii) in respect of any crop in any
one of the aforesaid

Book Page Page: 148

years, viz., Fastis 1378 to 1380, the Prescribed Authority is enjoined to examine the
Khasras for those three Fasli years, the village map, other relevant records considered necessary,
and also to make local inspection whenever it is necessary. Hence, there is no scope for contending
that. Prescribed Authority may form his opinion without reference to relevant material, in an
arbitrary or capricious manner to the detriment of tenure-holder as regards the availability of
assured irrigation facility to land from one of the enumerated sources?.?

26. It is true that other arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner for
challenging the -order impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority may not hold on merit, but
most certainly the argument with regard to determination of irrigated land having been made on
the basis of oral evidence of the Lekhpal, without examining the Khatuani of the relevant dates or
examining other relevant records including village map or making local inspection still holds good.

28. It is also the case of the Counsel for the petitioner that all these grounds were raised
in appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division,
Gorakhpur, but the Appellate Authority failed to look into the same and decided the appeal in
summary manner, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon section 38 of the Rural Ceiling Act,
wherein it has been provided that Civil Procedure Code shall apply to all appeals before the
Appellate Authority. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Madhukar v. Sangram,1 that it is the duty of the Court of first appeal that it must record its finding
only after dealing with all issues of law as well as facts and with the evidence, oral as well as
documentary led by the parties. In case, the Court of first appeal does not fulfill its obligation to
consider all oral and documentary evidence placed before it on behalf of the both the parties, it
1 All. Shiv Darshan Vs. Addl. Collector F/R & Ors.
1089
fails to discharge its obligation and therefore, the valuable right of the parties that is right to be
heard on both questions of law and fact is defeated."

(iii) Adi Kumar Jain (Supra). Relevant paragraphs 16 to 18 are being quoted as under :-

"16. According to section 4-A of the Act, after examination of khasra 1378-F, 1379- F
and 1380-F, latest village map and such other records, Prescribed Authority was required to
record a findings that land of the petitioner were irrigated from State or private irrigation work
and at least two crops were grown in 1378-F, 1379-F and 1380-F or new irrigation facility became
available and composition of soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an
agricultural year. No such finding has been recorded.

17. If entire area of 48-1-1 bigha of plot 939 was un-irrigated then its area in terms of
irrigated land would be 32-14-0 bigha and the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of 16-7-0
bigha but Prescribed Authority gave benefit of 7-7-1 bigha. It is not possible to say that only an
area of 22-1-1 bigha was un-irrigated and remaining land is irrigated. In any case specific findings
that land was irrigated from State/private irrigation work is required to be recorded. Findings of
Prescribed Authority regarding irrigated land is illegal.

18. Usar land has to be determined according to the provisions of Rule 3-A, which
provides that any land included in the holding, was not used for growing crop during 1376-F to
1380-F due to presence of salinity, stone, grit or kankar, shall be treated to be usar land.
Admittedly, some part of plot No. 939 was not used for growing crop in the aforesaid years.
Kulvant Singh, Lekhpal of village Tipahar, has stated that over a part of the land, due to salinity, it
was unfit for growing crop. Prescribed Authority has illegally ignored the statement of Lekhpal
and contined his finding only on the basis of khasra although khasra are relevant for examination
as to whether crops were grown in it or not. In khasra of relevant years, some part of the land was
shown to be not used for growing crops and reason has been given in the oral statement of Lekhpal
that soil was having salinity and unfit for growing crops, which was admissible in evidence, but it
has been illegally ignored."

11. On perusal of the judgments relied upon, it is evident that burden to produce the relevant
khasras lies on the State, therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned appellate order that no
khasras of 1378-1380 fasli was produced before the authority concerned and the burden lies upon
the appellant to produce the same, is wholly erroneous in nature and not justified in law.

12. For ready reference, Section 4-A is being quoted below :-

"4A. Determination of irrigated land. - The prescribed authority shall examine the
relevant Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 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-
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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 Pradesh Imposition 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

thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation
canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and

(b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least
two crops in an agricultural year; then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be
irrigated land for the purposes of this Act.

Explanation I. - For the purposes of this section the expression' effective command area'
means an area, the farthest field whereof in any direction was irrigated-

(a) in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli; or

(b) in any agricultural year referred to in the clause 'secondly'.

Explanation II. - The ownership and location of a private irrigation work shall not be
relevant for the purpose of this section.

Explanation III. - Where sugarcane crop was grown on any land in any of the years 1378
Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, it shall be deemed that two crops were grown on it any of these
years, and that the land is capable of growing two crops in an agricultural year."

13. On its perusal, it is clear that while passing the order by the prescribed authority and
appellate court, the relevant provision of Section 4-A was not taken into consideration and the
matter was decided without considering the same. The provision of Section 5 (3) (b) was also not
taken into consideration while deciding the dispute in regard to the proceeding initiated against the
petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

14. The judgment placed by learned counsel for the petitioner is fully applicable to the present
facts and circumstances of the case. The prescribed authority has failed to take into consideration
that the land is irrigated or not without examining the khasra of the year 1378-80 and other relevant
1 All. Babu Khan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors.
1091
records including the village map or by making local inspection, therefore, the impugned order is
not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

15. The appellate court has also erred in law in affirming the judgment of the prescribed
authority without examining the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

16. Submission advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the burden lies
upon the appellant to produce the relevant khasras is not correct. In fact, the burden lies on the
State to produce the relevant khasras of the aforesaid years, therefore, the argument advanced is not
admissible in law. In regard to the married daughter, the controversy in regard to that shall again be
decided by the authority concerned.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 31.12.1999, passed by the
prescribed authority and 7.11.2002, passed by the appellate court are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. However, the matter is remanded to the prescribed authority to consider the grievance of
the petitioner afresh and pass order in accordance with law after affording fullest opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned within six months.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1091
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000168 of 1998

Babu Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admin. Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether holding of the petitioner has wrongly been shown and he has lesser holding?
(b) Whether the burden of proof, which squarely lies upon the State to prove land is surplus through cogent
evidence, was duly discharged?
(c) Whether the impugned orders suffer from internal contradictions and lack of proper reasoning, thereby
violating the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication?
(d) Whether authorities conducted a fair, objective, and comprehensive enquiry in the present proceedings?

Headnotes
A. Land Law - Ceiling Act: Section 10(2); U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960:
Section 29. The proceedings initiated u/s 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
involved the holdings of the deceased petitioner in Village Barethi and Village Rasoolpur. On 18.06.1996, the
petitioner filed objections asserting that the CLH Form 3 statement was prepared with "vengeance" by the