# Societies, Allahabad v. The State of

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 553
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-04-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12764 of 1986
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/societies-allahabad-v-the-state-of-40932
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Holdings Act 1960-4-A-Determination of
irrigated and un-irrigated plots in the
relevant year-if part of holding irrigatedwhole plots can be treated to be
irrigated-as approved by the Apex Court
in Abai Ram's case.

Held: Para 4

There
were
different
variations
in
different
years.
Prescribed
authority
rightly held that as the variations were
different i.e. in some year only in 10
Bighas two crops were not grown and in
some year in about 25 Bighas two crops
were not grown hence it meant that
nature of the soil was such that if efforts
had been made then entire plot could
have yielded two crops.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC-577
1979 ALJ-1113
AIR 1990 SC-477

## Text

2 All] Smt. Asharfi Devi V. State of U.P. and others
553
or class of establishment which the
Central
Government
or
a
State
Government
notifies
in
the
official
Gazette.

6. From the aforesaid provision, it is
clear that the petitioner's society is not
covered
under
the
definition
of
establishment nor could it be called an
industrial establishment. Further, nothing
has been brought on record by the
respondents to show that any notification
has been issued including a society as an
establishment covered under the Payment
of Wages Act.

7. In Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Allahabad Vs. The State of
U.P. And others, 1997 (75) FLR 356,
this Court held that a Co-operative
Society is not covered under the Payment
of Wages Act. I am in complete
agreement with the aforesaid judgment.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court holds that the Payment of Wages
Act is not applicable upon a Co-operative
Society formed under the Co-operative
Societies
Registration
Act
1965.
Consequently, the entire proceedings
under the Payment of Wages Act, was Exfacie, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Consequently, the impugned order cannot
be sustained and is quashed. The writ
petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2007

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12764 of 1986

Smt Asharfi Devi

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Sri Neeraj Agarwal
Sri Rama Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act 1960-4-A-Determination of
irrigated and un-irrigated plots in the
relevant year-if part of holding irrigatedwhole plots can be treated to be
irrigated-as approved by the Apex Court
in Abai Ram's case.

Held: Para 4

There
were
different
variations
in
different
years.
Prescribed
authority
rightly held that as the variations were
different i.e. in some year only in 10
Bighas two crops were not grown and in
some year in about 25 Bighas two crops
were not grown hence it meant that
nature of the soil was such that if efforts
had been made then entire plot could
have yielded two crops.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC-577
1979 ALJ-1113
AIR 1990 SC-477

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
The following orders passed under
U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act 1960, (Hereinafter referred
to as "The Act") have been challenged
through this writ petition.

1.
Order dated 29.1.1981 passed by the
prescribed authority Ceiling / SDO,
Dadri passed in case No. 8 of 1980,
State Vs. Asharfi.
2.
Order dated 14.4.1983 passed by the
prescribed authority rejecting review
petition filed against first order.
3.
Order dated 13.5.1986 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut dismissing appeal
No. 18 of 1985-86, which was
directed against orders of prescribed
authority at serial No. 1 and 2.

2. The prescribed authority through
orders at serial No. 1 and 2 declared 8
Bigha and odd irrigated land of petitioner
as surplus land. By the third order appeal
filed against the first two orders was
dismissed.

3. Earlier matter had come to this
court in the form of writ petition No. 5204
of 1977 which was allowed on 7.5.1979
and prescribed authority was directed to
decide irrigated or unirrigated nature of
plot Nos. 19 and 174 after permitting the
parties to adduce evidence. In the said
order, it was directed that the matter
should be decided in the light of division
bench authority of this court reported in
Jaswant Singh Versus State 1978 AWC
577.
Thereafter
prescribed
authority
passed the order at serial No.1 (Supra).

4. Both the courts below held that
Khasras of 1378 to 1380 fasli were
available. It was also held that plot No. 19
was quite big having an area of 61 Bigha
and odd in which petitioner's share were
only 17 Bighas and odd. It was further
observed that in the relevant Khasras
entire plot of 61 Bigha and odd was
shown to have been irrigated through tube
well of one Shahbari and it was also
shown therein that every year two crops
were grown in the said plot. It was argued
by the petitioner tenure holder before the
prescribed authority that the entire land in
all the three relevant years i.e 1378, 1379
and 1380 fasli was not shown to be
irrigated and growing two crops. There
were different variations in different
years. Prescribed authority rightly held
that as the variations were different i.e. in
some year only in 10 Bighas two crops
were not grown and in some year in about
25 Bighas two crops were not grown
hence it meant that nature of the soil was
such that if efforts had been made then
entire plot could have yielded two crops.
It was also argued that plot No. 19 was
subsequently irrigated by tube well
No.22. Prescribed authority rightly held
that it made no difference and relevant
years to be seen were 1378 to 1380 fasli.
Prescribed authority also observed that
apart from petitioner Asharfi Devi, no
other co-tenure holder of the said plot
raised any objection regarding irrigated
character of the said plot. The argument
of
petitioner
that
Lekhpal
wrongly
mentioned in relevant Khasras that the
plot in dispute was wrongly shown to
have been irrigated from the tube well of
Shahbari, was rightly rejected. Prescribed
authority under Ceiling Act can not go
against Khasras of 1378 to 1380 fasli
while determining irrigated nature of land
as is evident from section 4-A of the Act.
Prescribed authority also mentioned that
Naib
Tehsildar
in
his
report
also
mentioned the irrigated nature of the plot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
2 All] Balbir Singh V. State of U.P. and others
555
argued that the said report was not
available. Even if the said report is
completely ignored, position remains the
same. The findings are based upon entries
of Khasras 1378 to 1380 fasli and that is
what is required by section 4-A of the
Act.

5. The findings recorded by the
courts below are not at all against the
judgment of Jaswant Singh Vs. State
1978 AWC 577. In the said authority, it
was mentioned that under section 4-A of
the Act, it was not permissible for the
prescribed authority to make use of any
oral evidence in the course of enquiry.
Prescribed authority has not placed
reliance upon any oral evidence. Even if
the report of Naib Tehsildar, Lekhpal etc
is completely ignored, the Khasras of
1378 to 1380 fasli completely proved that
the plots in dispute were irrigated.

6. Moreover, the division bench
authority of this court reported in Kallu
Vs. State 1979 ALJ 1113 held that if part
of a plot was irrigated in any of the
relevant years then it could be assumed
that the nature of the soil of whole plot
was such that if efforts had been made
then the whole plot could have been
irrigated and used for growing corps. The
said authority has been approved by the
Supreme Court in Kallu Vs. State decided
along with Abiaram Singh Vs. State AIR
1990 SC 477.

Accordingly I do not find any error
in the impugned orders; writ petition is
therefore dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11156 of 2002

Balbir Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prem Prakash
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh
Sri Gajendra Pratap
Sri C.B. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56 (c)-
Compulsorily
retirement-service
performance find good, very good and
excellent-order suffers from perversity-
the
petitioner
while
working
as
Inspector refused to give undue favour
to the relative of Police officer- can not
be imposed as punitve measure.

Held: Para 11

As such, passing of the impugned order
of
compulsory
retirement
of
the
petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances
is nothing but an act which suffers from
perversity, as it is clear that the said
order has been passed on extraneous
considerations and not on the basis of
the relevant service record and other
material on perusal of which a rational
mind may conceivably be satisfied that
compulsory retirement of the officer
concerned
was
necessary
in
public
interest.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC-49
1980 (4) SCC-321
2001 (3) SCC-314